BX 5136 .hTTSST 
 Howard, R. J. 
 The Church of England and 
 other religious communions 
 
 Shelf. _____ 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 
 in 2015 
 
 littps://arcliive.org/details/cliurcliofenglandoOOIiowa 
 
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 
 AND OTHER 
 
 RELIGIOUS COMMUNIONS 
 
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 
 AND OTHER 
 
 RELIGIOUS COMMUNIONS 
 
 A COURSE OF LECTURES DELIVERED AT THE 
 PARISH CHURCH OF CLAPHAM 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT "HOWARD, M.A. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., i, PATERNOSTER SQUARE 
 
 18S5 
 
(Thf rights o/tramlation and o/re/'rodnctlon are reserved.) 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following course of lectures was delivered, in sub- 
 stance, on various Friday evenings during the summer 
 and autumn of 1884, and their publication is due to the 
 kind request of many persons who heard them. The 
 original object of their delivery has, I trust, been kept 
 in view ; namely, the instruction of members of the 
 Church of England in the history of their Church, 
 and its position towards those religious communions 
 which exist in separation from it. In a speech de- 
 livered at the annual meeting of the Church Defence 
 Society in 1883, the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke 
 of the " immense mass of ignorance " on the part of 
 members of the Church of England concerning Church 
 questions. " There is not only the ignorance of the 
 helpless, but there is the ignorance of those who think 
 they know, and who, thinking that they know, set to 
 work at once to teach others ; and there is the ignorance 
 of all the ignorant who are taught ignorance by them. 
 And this teaching of ignorance is upon a very large 
 
VI 
 
 Preface. 
 
 scale." And the author of the " Established Church 
 Question " takes up his parable and dilates on the 
 remarkable and almost incredible absence of anything 
 like systematic teaching in English Church History in 
 the elementary and even the higher schools connected 
 with the Church, and he avers that " it is the neglect of 
 such systematic and definite teaching which has of late 
 years afforded to the opponents of the Church a pre- 
 pared field in which to sow broadcast amongst an unin- 
 structed and credulous populace, and with a prospect of 
 speedy and mischievous results, every kind of error, 
 misstatement, and misrepresentation tending to the pre- 
 judice of the Church's usefulness, and contributing to 
 the alienation of numbers of the people from her houses 
 of prayer." I have endeavoured, accordingly, in the 
 lectures of the series on the Church of England, to con- 
 struct an epitome of a lengthened history under the 
 several heads of the spiritual and historical continuity, 
 the establishment and endowments of the Church, and 
 the proposals for its disestablishment and disendow- 
 ment. As many of the other religious communions in 
 this countr\' are so intimately related, in their historical 
 position, to the Church of England, a certain sense of 
 completeness, it was thought, required that some 
 account of their origin, history, and tenets should be 
 included in the series. The " dissidence of dissent" 
 in these communions cannot be overlooked, but when I 
 read the expression of an opinion from a well-known 
 Nonconformist minister (Rev. J. Guinness Rogers) to the 
 
Preface. 
 
 vil 
 
 following effect : — " The growing liberality of these times 
 disposes many to seek for a removal of the differences 
 by which Christians have been separated, and to desire 
 a greater catholicity in our modes of worship," I cannot 
 but entertain a hope that the rankling animosities of 
 what has been only too long a divided house are being 
 gradually assuaged, and that the spirit of fairness 
 towards those between whom a perfect agreement is not 
 yet possible may prevail over the spirit of bitterness and 
 untruthfulness. Within the Church of England itself 
 only the most despondent or the most unreasonable 
 persons (if such there be) can, I think, continue to doubt 
 that there is a strong, if slow, undergrowth of unity of 
 spirit and fellowship between what may be called the 
 various " schools of thought." " Parties " there always 
 will be, but party-spirit is becoming rarer and less 
 vindictive, except, perhaps, when it is galvanized into 
 sudden and spasmodic movement by the ill-considered 
 action of party societies. It may be that we are seeing 
 evident signs of a gracious and growing answer to the 
 divinely inspired prayer for unity which is daily rising 
 up from an innumerable company of the faithful 
 throughout the world. 
 
 I have not thought it necessary, in a book of this 
 kind, to add in foot-notes the several authorities from 
 whom I have gathered much valuble information. My 
 experience is, that the reference to such notes interferes 
 with the ordinary course of reading, and that the autho- 
 
viii 
 
 Preface. 
 
 rities are very seldom referred to by readers. I must 
 acknowledge, however, special obligations to Dr. Blunt's 
 " Dictionary of Sects and Heresies ; " to Canon Curteis' 
 Bampton Lectures on " Dissent in Relation to the Church 
 of England;" to Mr. Here's "Eighteen Centuries of 
 the Church in England ; " to Dr. Littledale's " Plain 
 Reasons against joining the Church of Rome;" and 
 to several articles in the " Church Quarterly Review." 
 On the question of the Establishment and Endow- 
 ments of the Church of England, I have made ample 
 use of " The Englishman's Brief," " The Established 
 Church Question," and " The Dead Hand in the Free 
 Churches," all inexpensive and trustworthy books, as 
 well as the treatises by Mr. Morris Fuller, Dr. Freeman, 
 and the late Mr. Brewer. The Official Year .Books of 
 the Church of England, published by the S.P.C.K., 
 afford invaluable evidence of the increasing progress 
 and strength of our beloved Church. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductory ... ... ... ... ... ... i 
 
 LECTURE n. 
 
 The Independents, or Congregationalists ... ... 21 
 
 LECTURE in. 
 
 The Baptists ... ... ... ... ... ... 38 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 The Unitarians ... ... ... ... ... ... 51 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 The Society of Friends, or Quakers ... ... ... 64 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 The Methodists ... ... ... ... ... ... 85 
 
 LECTURE Vn. 
 
 The New Church— Catholic and Apostolic Church — The 
 
 Brethren — The Positivists ... ... ... .■• 113 
 
X 
 
 Contents. 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Romanists ... ... ... ... ... ... 141 
 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 The Church of England — its Spiritual Continuity ... 158 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 The Church of England — its Historic.'\.l Continuity ... 179 
 LECTURE XI. 
 
 The Church of England — its Establishment ... ... 202 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 The Church of England — its Endowments ... ... 222 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 The Church of England — its Disestablishment and Dis- 
 
 endowment ... ... ... ... ... ... 242 
 
 Index 
 
 269 
 
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 
 
 AND OTHER 
 
 RELIGIOUS COMMUNIONS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 In the first of the lectures which it is proposed to deliver 
 respecting the Church of England and some of the other 
 religious communions in this country, which dissent 
 from the Church, it may be thought necessary to en- 
 deavour to ascertain to what several causes dissent, in 
 any definite form, can be ultimately traced. Strictly 
 speaking, the historical use of this word dates only from 
 the passing of the Toleration Act in the reign of William 
 III. and Mary (1689). The designation, at an earlier 
 date, of those who dissented from the worship and 
 doctrine of the Church was " Separatists," or " Sectaries," 
 and " Recusants." 
 
 Accepting, however, the present ordinary use of the 
 word, it may be asked what is dissent And dissent, 
 
 B 
 
2 The Church of England ajid 
 
 in its ecclesiastical sense, has been defined by Canon 
 Curteis, in his Bampton Lectures (1871), as "the ripened 
 and chronic form of a thing which in itself is often both 
 natural and right, namely, dissatisfaction with the exist- 
 ing doctrines or practices of the Church." The same 
 writer points out — "(i)that in all ages and countries 
 where the Christian Church has found a footingf, there 
 have always (from the very construction of the human 
 mind) arisen parties in opposition to the prevailing and 
 authorized methods both of doctrine and discipline : (2) 
 that this opposition and its resulting conflict is, in the 
 ecclesiastical as well as every other kind of polity, the 
 essential condition of vitality and movement : (3) that 
 while ' dissension ' is both healthy and inevitable, yet, 
 when it runs into extreme forms, becomes exasperated 
 by mismanagement, or poisoned by the admixture of 
 hatred, jealousy, and self-will, it then becomes a 
 dangerous and chronic disease ; it has grown into some- 
 thing which cannot easily be cured ; a chasm has opened 
 which renders re-union very difficult, and 'dissension' 
 has ripened into ' dissent.' When doctrine was mainly 
 in question, dissent received the name of 'heresy' — that 
 is, a selection or choice of some parts of the 'one faith ' 
 for belief, and the rejection of others. This is a weaken- 
 ing of the unity of the faith. When discipline and 
 practical order were mainly in question, ' dissent ' was 
 called ' schism ' — that is, a weakening by separation of 
 the outward unity of the Church." Internal dissensions 
 which do not issue in separation of communion are not 
 schism ; and where there is separation of communion 
 the separated is not necessarily the schismatic. 
 
other Religious Communions. 3 
 
 I. It is commonly supposed that the Puritans of the 
 reign of Elizabeth were the first body of dissenters in 
 England, but the presence of a Puritan party within the 
 Church can be traced for two centuries before the name 
 " Puritan " was especially given to it. 
 
 In the fourteenth century the Friars {Freres, Brethren), 
 who came into England as the militia of the Pope, and 
 under his special patronage, acted the part of dissenting 
 preachers, independently of, and generally in opposition 
 to, the parochial clergy. This extra-parochial system of 
 mission clergy, freed from the safeguards of responsibility, 
 weakened the hold which the parish priest had upon the 
 people, especially in the large towns. And when the 
 Friars themselves, by their extortion and evil practices, 
 and the evasion of the rules of the founders of their 
 respective orders, began to lose their influence and 
 became the recognized objects of course jests and biting 
 satire, alienation from the clergy quickly developed into 
 alienation from the entire system of Church order, and 
 eventually from civil order in the State. 
 
 Against the excesses and the corruptions of these 
 mendicant Friars, as well as against the usurpations of 
 the Papacy, the licentious luxury of the monks, and the 
 ignorance of the parish priests, Wiclif, when his spirit 
 was stirred within him, lifted up his voice in manly and 
 solemn protest. But being a man who, in the fervour of 
 his zeal against "the forms of godliness without the 
 power" which he saw around him, was more fitted to 
 pull down and to destroy than to build up, his influence 
 for good did not long survive him. His professed 
 followers, the Lollards (either from hillen, "to sing a 
 
4 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 lullaby," or from lollium, " tares "), as they were called, 
 can scarcely be called religious reformers, for their 
 opposition to the established order of things in the 
 Church was only part of the opposition which they 
 offered to established order in the State. 
 
 To the opinions which Wiclif and some of his fol- 
 lowers held in the reaction against the errors they strove 
 to correct, must historically be traced many of the wild 
 and dangerous speculations which were so rife in the 
 sixteenth century. And when at length the light of a 
 true reformation in life and doctrine began to dawn, it 
 was obscured by the clouds of sectarianism which were 
 already thickly gathering. " A door was thus opened," 
 says the late venerable Bishop of Lincoln, " to the 
 endless multiplication of religious sects which England 
 saw in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which 
 overthrew her civil as well as her ecclesiastical polity, 
 and which still paralyzes her efforts in her warfare 
 against sin and error, and in her endeavours to spread 
 the faith of Christ at home and abroad." 
 
 An anti-Church party was thus originated within 
 the Church, at first through the errors and excesses and 
 ignorance of the clergy of all ranks, and then encouraged 
 by the teaching of Wiclif, or by the interpretation put 
 upon his teaching by his professed followers. The soil 
 was being prepared to receive, in later times, the seeds 
 of Calvin's system, and the produce was Puritanism. 
 
 II. This anti-Church party was known at first as " The 
 Christian Brethren," and their earliest efforts to increase 
 the number of their followers were confined to writing 
 and distributing tracts, in which the doctrines and ritual 
 
other Religious Comynunions. 5 
 
 of the Church of England were severely attacked. At 
 Cambridge, in 1523, a theological party was formed 
 which met at a house called the White House, to confer 
 with others who were called in jest " Germans" because 
 they "conversed much in the books of the divines of 
 Germany brought thence." A few years later, in 1527, 
 a society, very similar to that which was organized two 
 centuries later by the Wesleys, was formed at Oxford. 
 
 " The leading spirit of this early anti-Church party 
 was William Tyndale, who may very fairly betaken as a 
 type of the class of the ultra-reformers. Tyndale had been 
 a Franciscan friar and a priest, but he cast off his obliga- 
 tions in early life, and, being disappointed in his efforts 
 to obtain a permanent home in the families of wealthy 
 laymen, went abroad. While he was on the Continent 
 he spent his time in attacking the doctrines and the 
 spiritual rulers of the Church, the ministry of which he 
 had forsaken. His writings show that he possessed 
 enough facility to tempt him to argue, but no argumen- 
 tative power." He stated his case often with great 
 vigour, if the use of abusive language on subjects which 
 all Christians concur in treating with due reverence be 
 held to be a mark of vigour. He may be looked upon 
 as the originator of that peculiar form of phraseolog}^ 
 sanctified it may be. but by no means saintly, with 
 which the controversial writings of the Puritans has 
 made us so unhappily familiar. His writings, it is true, 
 were widely circulated. They established a form of 
 " religious opinion " among the rising middle classes, who 
 were socially opposed to the clergy, and, being very 
 imperfectly educated, were easily taken with his racy 
 
6 
 
 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 English. Certainly these classes were not highly 
 regarded, either as to their morals, or their intelligence, 
 or their piety, by the discerning eye of our own Shak- 
 speare. " Tyndale was executed in the Netherlands, by 
 the order of the Emperor Charles V. He was not 
 burned at the stake as a martyr for daring to translate 
 the New Testament into English. It is only a further 
 evidence of the extent to which party feeling, supported 
 by ' facts ' which have no authority, will lead persons 
 otherwise sensible, when we find such a man regarded 
 as an able defender of the principles of the Church of 
 England, and as a martyr in the cause of her reformation." 
 
 "'The name Puritan,' as Mr. Gardiner observes, ' is 
 a constant source of trouble to the historian.' At Rome 
 it means a ProtestaJit. In England it denoted first a 
 Calvinist, then a Nonconformist in ceremonial, lastly 
 a Dissenter in doctrine, but all these latter without 
 actual separation from the Church. In our time these 
 appellations are all indiscriminately appropriated by 
 Separatists (which the original Puritans were not), who 
 agree only in hostility to State establishments, which 
 the original Puritans held to be the first duty of the 
 civil magistrate to uphold." 
 
 The Puritans are by some thought to have been 
 so called in derision by their opponents, because they 
 clamoured for a system of " pure " doctrine and " pure " 
 worship, which to them meant an entire departure from 
 all that had hitherto been believed and practised in the 
 Church. They appeared at first as an anti-Church party 
 within the Church of England during the reigns of 
 Henry and Edward. But the persecutions under Mary, 
 
other Religious Commtmions. 
 
 7 
 
 and the revival of the statutes against heresy, drove the 
 leaders of the party, and great numbers of Englishmen — 
 perhaps under a thousand — to take refuge in Germany 
 and in Switzerland. 
 
 It was in Geneva that they became more fully ac- 
 quainted with that system of Church government and 
 doctrine which Calvin (or Chauvin) had, at the age of 
 twenty-eight years, consolidated in his " Institutes of the 
 Christian Religion," and diffused throughout Europe. 
 Calvin's system of Church government was founded 
 on his own interpretation of one passage in the New 
 Testament. That passage is to be found in St. Paul's 
 Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. iv. 1 1, 12) : " He gave some, 
 apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; 
 and some, pastors and teachers ; ... for the work of 
 the ministry, for the edifying [building up] of the body 
 of Christ [the Church]." " Of these offices," said Calvin, 
 " the two former were temporary in their character and 
 purpose ; but the three latter were intended to be per- 
 manent, and they include such offices as those of lay 
 elders and lay deacons." Calvin subsequently became a 
 coadjutor of Farel, a French Huguenot, whose agitation 
 had d riven away from Geneva its bishop. Farel usurped 
 the bishop's authority, and Calvin became one of the 
 chief " pastors " of the city. The repubhcan party in 
 Geneva was delighted with the opposition of Calvin to 
 the Episcopal form of Church government which it had 
 so recently rejected ; but when Calvin protested against 
 the immorality and profligacy of the people, they re- 
 volted in 1538, and banished Farel and himself from 
 the city. He returned, however, in 1541, and became. 
 
8 
 
 The Church of Englatid and 
 
 till his death in 1567, the ruler or dictator of Geneva. 
 He imposed the most stringent restraint upon the press, 
 and even upon the private expressit)n of any opinions 
 at variance with his own, and he rigorously excluded 
 all preachers except those of his own appointment from 
 the pulpits of his Church. 
 
 Calvin's system of doctrine is marked by the insist- 
 ence of his own opinions on the difificult and disputed 
 questions of election, the absolute and irreversible de- 
 crees of the Almighty, and particular redemption. Some 
 of Calvin's works became known in England as early 
 as 1 542, when their use was prohibited. A few years 
 later, when Archbishop Cranmer projected a general 
 union of foreign Protestants with the Church of Eng- 
 land, Calvin was invited to a conference at Lambeth 
 Palace. He did not accept the invitation, but wrote 
 many letters to the Protector Somerset, whom he 
 addresses, as Collier remarks, "as if the government 
 of the Church was almost wholly at his disposal," and 
 also to the king and to Cranmer, condemning the Refor- 
 mation of the Church of England as incomplete, and 
 urging them to carry it further towards the Presbyterian 
 pattern of Geneva. But the principles of his system 
 of Church government were chiefly disseminated through 
 the teaching of some of his foreign disciples, who were 
 appointed to positions of influence in the Church of 
 England. Peter Martyr, an Italian, who had been an 
 Augustinian Friar, was Regius Professor of Divinity at 
 Oxford ; Martin Bucer, a German, who had been a 
 Dominican or Black Friar, held a similar post at Cam- 
 bridge. A confessor to Pope Paul HI. was made Canon 
 
other Religious Communions. 9 
 
 of Canterbury, and was afterwards banished for teaching 
 Socinian doctrines, and for his advocacy of polygamy. 
 John a Lasco, a Pole, was one of Cranmer's chief ad- 
 visers. He is said to have been the first to introduce 
 into England the irreverent custom of sitting instead 
 of kneeling to receive the Holy Communion. He is 
 said also to have used his influence to get the holy 
 table brought down from the east end of the chancel 
 into the body of the church, and to reverse its position, 
 so that the short sides were placed east and west, and 
 yet the minister retained his accustomed position at the 
 middle of the long side, which became technically known 
 as the " north side." John Knox, " a true representative 
 of his generation " (says Mr. Lloyd, in his " Sketches of 
 Church History in Scotland "), " intolerant, irreverent, 
 and unscrupulous," a priest in the Scotch Church, was 
 at one time acting as chaplain to Edward VI., and at 
 another preaching down the Church and preaching up 
 Presbyterianism in the northern border counties. " Prob- 
 ably no man ever did so much harm to the Protestant 
 Reformation, or so zealously fomented the civil wars 
 both of England and Scotland." 
 
 On the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the exiles who 
 had left this country in the reign of her sister returned 
 from Frankfort and Geneva. They brought with them 
 what Archbishop Parker terms " their Germanical 
 natures." They showed a strong preference for the 
 Presbyterian system, and complained that the Refor- 
 mation had not gone far enough, and was not complete. 
 These Presbyterian Puritans lost no time in publishing 
 their opinions, and in sowing the seeds of that religious 
 
lO 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 and political discord which culminated in the Great Re- 
 bellion, and in their own effacement by the " Sectaries," 
 whom they vehemently opposed and utterly abhorred. 
 The descriptive picture which Macaulay has drawn of 
 the Puritan of those days will never probably be sur- 
 passed : "His gait, his garb, his lank hair, the sour 
 solemnity of his face, the upward whites of his eyes, 
 his nasal twang, his peculiar dialect, his malignant dis- 
 position, marked him out from other men. It was a 
 sin to hang garlands on a May-pole, to drink to the 
 health of a friend, to fly a hawk, to play at chess, or 
 to read the ' Faery Queen.' The weekly festival on 
 which the Church had, from its first foundation, com- 
 memorated the resurrection of our Lord, was fenced 
 round with the more than Pharisaic restrictions of the 
 ancient sabbath. Some had scruples about teaching 
 boys the rules of the Latin Grammar, because the names 
 of Mars and Apollo and Bacchus were to be found 
 in the examples. They objected to baiting bears, not 
 because it gave pain to the bears, but because it afforded 
 pleasure to the spectators." They were never wanting 
 in objections to even the restricted ceremonial forms 
 which had been ordered in the public performance of 
 divine worship. Every vestige of ceremonial or eccle- 
 siastical habit which was not Genevan, they condemned 
 as " dregs of popery," " marks of antichrist and of the 
 beast," or, what they considered as equally pernicious, 
 as signs of Lutheranism, the only true form, historically, 
 of Protestantism. 
 
 It was in 1564 that the Puritans broke out into 
 open rebellion against all existing Church authority. 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 They objected — (l) to the use of a surplice as a symbol 
 of sacerdotal or priestly pretensions ; whereas, as we 
 know, it is an ecclesiastical habit which has been used 
 for many ages in the Church by choristers, lay clerks, 
 and other laymen during the performance of divine 
 worship ; (2) to the sign of the cross as used at bap- 
 tism or at any other time, which we know is carefully 
 explained as an outward symbol in token that we are 
 soldiers marching under the banner of the Crucified, and 
 fighting against the world, the flesh, and the devil ; (3) 
 to the wedding-ring in marriage, which again is an out- 
 ward symbol setting forth the perpetuity of the marriage 
 union till death do part ; (4) to bowing at the name 
 of Jesus, which is a reverent acknowledgment of our 
 belief in the humility of the Son of God in becoming 
 man. They objected to set forms of prayer, to all in- 
 strumental music, to making responses in divine service, 
 to kneeling at the reception of the Holy Communion, 
 to lights before the Sacrament, to altar crosses, to chancel 
 screens and painted windows, as well as to the use of 
 a special vestment or dress by the minister at the Holy 
 Communion ; — in fine, to everything which could be 
 named in the ceremonies of the Church of England, or 
 which redeemed its teaching from the prosaic dead-level 
 of " the pure gospel," as it was preached in the little 
 town of Geneva. 
 
 And what was the result of this teaching in Geneva 
 and in England Calvin died in 1 564, and " in the seven- 
 teenth century Geneva was distinguished by the open 
 profession of infidel opinions, till at length the Catholic 
 doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, and the Incar- 
 
12 The Church of England and 
 
 nation of the Son of God were prohibited by authority 
 as subjects of public instruction." In England, in the 
 reign of Elizabeth, it was just this, says Mr. Froude : 
 " Systematic irreverence was intruded into the churches ; 
 carelessness and irreligion had formed an unnatural 
 alliance with Puritanism, and in many places the Lord's 
 table consisted of bare boards resting on tressels in 
 the middle of the nave. The communicants knelt, 
 stood, or sat, as they liked ; the chalice was the first 
 cup that came to hand ; the clerg^'man wore surplice, 
 the Genevan black gown, or his ordinary dress, as he 
 pleased." It has been sometimes thought that a certain 
 amount of concession might have been made to the 
 Puritans for the sake of peace on matters of ceremonial 
 which some regard as trifles. But, on the other hand, 
 it may be said that if such matters may be regarded 
 as trifles, is it necessary to organize an " associated " 
 opposition to them ? 
 
 The resistance which was offered was, in fact, only 
 a part of that greater scheme for substituting the crude 
 theories of Calvin and his form of Presbyterian Church 
 government, and " Discipline," for the system of the 
 Church of England, and supplanting, under the plea 
 of completing, the English Reformation. And as for 
 peace, there was only one way of securing it, and that 
 was by allowing the Puritans everything, whether of 
 importance or not, for which they made a sufficiently 
 continuous demand. 
 
 The active measures which were taken by the " High 
 Commission Court " to secure even a moderate unifor- 
 mity, were resisted by the Puritan clergy, many of 
 
othe7' Religious Commtmions. 
 
 13 
 
 whom were deprived of their benefices on account of 
 their refusal to obey the law, while others held their 
 benefices, but evaded the use of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, by employing " readers " or Parliament ministers 
 as they called them, and themselves remaining in the 
 vestry until the time came for the delivery of the sermon. 
 
 III. The first organized separation of the Puritans as 
 Presbyterians from the Church of England took place 
 in 1572. 
 
 The first presbytery on Calvinistic principles was 
 established at Wandsworth. Eleven elders (presbyters) 
 were chosen, and their offices were described in a register 
 called "The Orders of Wandsworth." The originators 
 of this separation were Field, who had been lecturer 
 at the parish church ; Cartwright, who had been for 
 a few months Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, the 
 leader of the Puritans within and without the Church ; 
 and Travers, reader at the Temple, whose controversy 
 with the Master, Richard Hooker, led the latter to write 
 on "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity." Concerning 
 this immortal work. Pope Clement VIII. is stated to 
 have said, " His books will get reverence by age, for 
 there is in them such seeds of eternity, that they shall 
 continue till the last fire shall devour all learning." 
 
 The controversy between "the judicious" Hooker 
 and Travers was taken up at a later date by Dean 
 Bridges, of Salisbury. His work called forth a series of 
 ribald pamphlets, which were published under the name 
 of " Martin Mar-Prelate Tracts," and written by one 
 Penry, " a foolish jester." They were not only filled 
 with the most venomous rancour against the bishops 
 
1 4 The Chiirck of England ajid 
 
 and the non-Puritan clergy, but against the queen and 
 her courtiers. 
 
 But the leaders of the Presbyterian Puritan party 
 were not long in devising a plan by which they could 
 maintain and spread abroad the principles of the 
 " Discipline " without relinquishing their benefices, and 
 this is probably one chief reason why they formed so 
 few separate congregations. They tried to graft their 
 new system of Presbyterian orders and government 
 upon the old parent tree of the Church, but the graft 
 remained to the end " a wild olive-branch." On the 
 accession of James I., who had lived in the midst of 
 the Presbyterian system, and had subscribed to the 
 Scottish " Covenant," the Puritans naturally indulged 
 in hopeful expectations of the success of their system. 
 On his way to London they presented to the king the 
 "Millenary Petition," so called from professing to have 
 one thousand (there were really seven hundred and fifty) 
 signatures attached to it. In this petition they prayed 
 to be relieved of "a common burden of human rites 
 and ceremonies," under which they as ministers were 
 " groaning," and for the appointment of a " conference 
 among the learned." The king accordingly summoned 
 a meeting of representatives of the Church and anti- 
 Church parties to consider the grievances complained 
 of, and to provide remedies if necessary. This was 
 called, from the place of its meeting, "The Hampton 
 Court Conference." It lasted three days. On its con- 
 clusion, the king declared that most of the Puritan 
 demands were inconsistent with the acknowledged status 
 of the Church of England, but that a few verbal altera- 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 15 
 
 tions should be made in the Book of Common Prayer. 
 At the same time an addition was made to the Church 
 Catechism in explanation of the Sacraments, it is said 
 from the pen of Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, and cer- 
 tainly not drawn up on Puritan lines. 
 
 The Archbishop (Abbot, an austere Calvinist), 
 undid nearly all the previous labours of his predecessor 
 (Bancroft) to rescue the Church out of the hands of the 
 Puritans. Their power increased so much during his 
 primacy, that in a few years after his death they attained 
 for a time the object for which they had long hoped — 
 the substitution of Presbyterian Church government for 
 episcopacy. " The lax rule of his primacy and the 
 latitudinarian views of Abbot conduced more than any- 
 thing else to produce that rebellion which brought his 
 successor to the scaffold. By his laxity of discipline, and 
 his appointment of Puritans to important stations in the 
 Church, under the plea of making concessions to tender 
 consciences, he was preparing the evils of which Arch- 
 bishop Laud became the victim, and of which he is 
 incorrectly thought to have been the originator." 
 
 The Synod of Dort, in 161 8, was summoned by the 
 Prince of Orange with a view to settling the differences 
 between the Arminians and the Calvinists. By sending 
 commissioners from England, King James seemed, but 
 only seemed, to give countenance to the decisions of the 
 Synod in favour of the Calvinists, of whom it was chiefly 
 composed. The Puritans in England regarded these 
 decisions as strengthening their position against the 
 Arminians, " the spawn of Papists," as it became the 
 fashion for the members of the High Church party who 
 
1 6 The Church of England and 
 
 opposed the dogmas of the Calvinists to be called. 
 They raised such controversial disputes that in order to 
 allay them a proclamation was issued by the king, pro- 
 hibiting any preacher under the rank of bishop or dean 
 from preaching on any one of " the five points " of what 
 was called the " Ouinquarticular Controversy." With 
 the same object in view, the " Declaration " was prefixed 
 by Laud to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion in 1628, 
 enforcing their plain grammatical and literal sense. 
 
 In the reign of Elizabeth, as we have seen, Puritanism 
 was kept well under control. The queen recognized 
 that a crisis was at hand ; she understood it, and with 
 her worldly wisdom she yielded graciously. The House 
 of Commons, in which the Puritans formed a majority, 
 had the power of withholding the supplies ; and when, 
 in the last year of the queen's reign, they gained the 
 victory over the crown on the question of monopolies, 
 they showed that they were not afraid to use that power. 
 The dynasty of the Stuarts exalted the royal preroga- 
 tives even more than the dynasty of the Tudors. 
 James I. was enamoured of his theory of the " divine 
 right of kings," and he upheld the divine right 
 (politically) of bishops, because they declared in favour 
 of the divine right of kings. The unpopularity with 
 which the throne came to be regarded accordingly 
 involved the Church in unpopularity also. Puritanism 
 became identified with the cause of civil and religious 
 liberty, while the Church was regarded as the abettor of 
 royal tyranny, and the enemy of the people. Charles I. 
 had inherited the full meaning of his father's famous 
 aphorism, "No bishop, no king." The Puritans still 
 
othci' Religious Comimniioiis. 
 
 formed a majority in the House of Commons. They 
 felt and knew their power of granting or withholding 
 supplies ; and they took advantage of their constitutional 
 right to oppose the king without breaking the laws of 
 the kingdom. 
 
 It is very difficult, in dealing with the ecclesiastical 
 events of this reign, so far as they represent the differ- 
 ence between the Church and the Puritan or dissenting 
 anti-Church party, to distinguish between the history 
 of the Church and the history of the State. "The 
 history of the struggle between Charles and his Par- 
 liaments," it has been said, " is the history of a religious 
 struggle, ending in the temporary triumph of Puri- 
 tanism, but in that struggle we find Parliament usurping 
 the duties of the Church and of Convocation, and 
 pronouncing ecclesiastical censures ; -whilst the Church 
 invaded the duties of Parliament by insisting on the 
 divine right of kings, and of its own right to impose 
 taxes without, and even in opposition to, the consent of 
 Parliament." As the events in this reign, which closed 
 amidst the sombre scenes of anarchy and bloodshed, can 
 be read in any ordinary history of England, I need not 
 recapitulate them. I will merely add that the " Long 
 Parliament," so called from its duration (1640-1652), 
 passed an Act (February 14, 1642), the forerunner of the 
 " Root and Branch " ]-?il!, depriving the bishops of their 
 seats in the House of Lords, in which no bishop sat 
 again for twenty years. Soon afterwards they were 
 deprived of their official incomes, and some of them 
 were reduced to great poverty and want. Li 1643 
 Bill was passed for the utter abolition of episcopacy, 
 
 C 
 
1 8 The Church of England and 
 
 and this was supplemented by an ordinance for placing 
 all the possessions of their sees in the hands of a com- 
 mission of aldermen. In the same year an assembly, 
 known as " The \\'estminster Assembly of Divines," met 
 for the first time in King Henry VI I. "s Chapel in West- 
 minster Abbey, and agreed to the " Solemn League and 
 Covenant," which had been adopted in Scotland for the 
 extirpation of papacy and prelacy, and the setting up of 
 presbytery. For it was triumphantly asked, "Was not 
 Christ Himself a Covenanter ? " and " Was not every one 
 who refused to join the Covenanters an Atheist ? " The 
 next work of the Assembh* was to prepare a " Director}' 
 for Public Worship," as a substitute for the Book of 
 Common Prayer ; and the House of Commons, having 
 adopted a counterfeit Great Seal, ordered it to come into 
 use January 4, 1645. The Assembly also issued painful 
 " Longer " or " Shorter " Catechisms, in which the leading 
 doctrines of Calvinism were enunciated and illustrated 
 with an array of texts, to the infinite terror of the children 
 of '' the third and fourth generation." This same Long 
 Parliament, having abolished the Book of Common 
 Prayer, made its use, whether in public, or even in a 
 private family, a penal otTence. The remaining " ordi- 
 nances " were directed in favour of setting up the Presby- 
 terian form of government in the Church of England ; 
 of ordaining ministers by the " classical presbyters " 
 (that is, those who were appointed by a classis or con- 
 ference) ; and of dividing the several counties of the 
 kingdom into presbyteries and congregational elderships. 
 A committee was formed for the removal of " scandalous 
 or malignant clerg>-'' — that is, of those who, remaining 
 
other Relioioiis Communions. 
 
 19 
 
 loyal to the Church and king', refused to sign the 
 ■"Covenant." They were convicted of malignity often 
 on the unsupported evidence of the meanest and worst 
 of the parishioners, and a pension, in some cases only, 
 not exceeding one-fifth of the gross value of the bene- 
 fices, was assigned to them, but not certainly paid. The 
 number of those clergy who were thus unlawfully de- 
 prived of their benefices is stated on one authority to have 
 been not far short of three thousand, while Gauden puts 
 their number at eight thousand. Their benefices were 
 filled, until the restoration of Charles II., by Pres- 
 byterians, and by the rising sect of " Brownists," or 
 ■" Independents." 
 
 The Puritans had fully attained their object. The 
 archbishop (Laud), who was an object of hatred to the 
 Romanists no less than to the Puritans, after having 
 been detained in prison for three years, and fined thirty- 
 six thousand pounds, was beheaded on Tower Hill 
 (January 10, 1644). The bishops and clergy had been 
 driven from their sees and their benefices, and deprived 
 of their incomes. The Book of Common Prayer had 
 been abolished. The king, pronounced to be a traitor, 
 a murderer, and a public enemy, was beheaded (January 
 30, 1649), i''^ the presence of thousands of spectators, in 
 front of the banqueting-hall of his own palace at White- 
 hall. 
 
 Thus the Puritans, having first destroyed and uprooted, 
 as they supposed, prelacy in lingland, proceeded to 
 uproot and destroy monarchy also. They succeeded 
 in giving an unexpected turn to the expression of the 
 wise monarch, " No bishop, no king." But the hour in 
 
20 The CJmrcJi of England and 
 
 which the Puritans attained their final triumph sounded 
 the knell of their departing day of power. 
 
 During the twelve years that intervened between the 
 destruction of the Church and the monarchy and the 
 restoration of both, the " Sectaries," as they were called, 
 the Independents, the Baptists, the Quakers, and other 
 minor sects, who cared nothing for the " Discipline " of 
 the Presbyterian system, and discovered that " new 
 presbyter " was only " old priest writ large," brought 
 disunion and disaffection into their ranks. The Inde- 
 pendents, under the guidance of Oliver Cromwell, became 
 supreme in the House of Commons and in the army. 
 And as the influence of the Independents increased that 
 of the older Puritans grew weaker. The Presbyterian 
 ministers repaired to their livings in the country, from 
 which the lawful incumbents had been expelled. The 
 Westminster Assembly came to an end, and by the 
 time of the Restoration, the Puritans who had advocated 
 Calvin's Presbyterian form of Church government had 
 ceased, as a part}-, to exist within the Church of England. 
 
other Religions CommiLuions. 
 
 21 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 THE IXnKPENDENTS, OR CONflREGATIOXALISTS. 
 
 We have seen, in the previous lecture, that the queen 
 (Elizabeth) acting chiefly under tlie advice of Cecil, 
 would not at first restrain with too severe a hand the 
 nonconformity of the Puritans. But after she had seen, 
 during her memorable visit to Cambridge, a blasphemous 
 pageant " in which a dog appeared carrying the Eucha- 
 rist in its mouth," she was so shocked and horrified that 
 she rose and left the room. The first attempt which 
 the queen made to tighten the reins of Church disci- 
 pline was met with a storm of abuse, and with deter- 
 mined resistance. She objected to the " Prophesyings 
 of the Clergy," as they were called, that is, associations 
 in each parish presided over by a moderator ; and she 
 called upon the primate (Parker) to suppress them. 
 But she would neither herself consistently support, nor 
 allow any assistance to be given by her secretaries of 
 State, or any member of the council, to the archbishop. 
 Nor did the primate receive that cordial support from 
 the suffragans of his province which he might reasonably 
 have expected. Most of the bishops who had been 
 appointed at the beginning of the queen's reign, being 
 
T/ic CJmrch of England and 
 
 ruritans at heart, were unwilling to enforce on the 
 clergy even the minimum of ritual which the ordinances^ 
 issued by the sole authority of Archbishop Parker, and 
 so well known as " The Advertisements," prescribed. 
 These " Advertisements " have been shown not to be 
 the " taking of further order " spoken of in the " Orna- 
 ments Rubric" in the Prayer-book of 1559. There is 
 no evidence to show that the queen ever saw them. 
 They were not intended to prohibit the vestments in 
 use in the second }-ear of Edward VI., which wei'e 
 enacted in that rubric, but only to enforce some ritual 
 and reverence in parish churches, and in a higher degree 
 in catliedral and collegiate churches. The Bishop of 
 Norwich especially resisted the primate, and appealed 
 to the Earl of Leicester, to whose fascinations the 
 queen, it was supposed, might be induced to yield. 
 Leicester supported him, and the queen, with her capri- 
 cious temper, seemed for a time inclined to follow the 
 leadership of her present favourite. " The talc of bricks," 
 says Mr. Froudc, " must be delivered, although there 
 was no straw given to burn them." The Puritans would 
 at first neither conform nor secede. The principle of 
 independency was not in their minds. They preferred 
 to enjoy the position which an established Church would 
 give them, but it must be a Church established on the 
 perfect model which they had brought with them from 
 Geneva — a Presbyterian form of government, a ministry 
 pledged to promulgate the tenets of Calvin, liberty to 
 have such modes of praying and preaching as each con- 
 gregation liked best, and yet to be called the Church 
 of England. This system v.-as as far removed from 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 23 
 
 Independency as that of the Church itself, and some 
 among the Puritans with more honesty and common- 
 sense soon recognized how impossible it was to maintain 
 such a position. They saw plainly enough that the 
 doctrines of the Church of England and her traditional 
 mode of ritual were opposed to the doctrine and disci- 
 pline of Geneva, and they took the more honest course 
 of separating from the communion of the Church, when 
 they became persuaded in their own minds that the 
 system of Calvin was the reproduction, after many days, 
 of the organization of the Apostolic and Primitive- 
 Church, 
 
 I. The first person who led the way in 1569 in seced- 
 ing from the Church on the principles of "Independency," 
 or, as it is now called, " Congregationalism," was Robert 
 Browne, a priest of the Church of England, chaplain to 
 the Duke of Norfolk, and an " arrogant spirit." For 
 two years, while Browne was master of the P>ee School 
 at St. Olaves, he used to preach in a gravel pit in Isling- 
 ton. On being cited to appear before the High Court 
 of Commission, he refused to subscribe to the Thirty- 
 nine Articles. Being screened by the Duke of Norfolk 
 from the civil and ecclesiastical penalties attaching to 
 his refusal, he went to Norwich, which at that time con- 
 tained a large population of Calvinists from Holland, 
 and there he formed separate or " Independent " congre- 
 gations. He was summoned before the Queen's Eccle- 
 siastical Commissioners in 1581, and was bidden to hold 
 his peace. After this he left England and settled in 
 Holland, where he wrote a book in which he set forth 
 those principles of congregational autonomy (self-govern- 
 
24 
 
 The CImrch of England and 
 
 ment) w hich have since become the distinctive character- 
 istic of the Congregationahsts. When dissensions arose 
 amongst his " Independent " or " Free Churches " in 
 Holland, which resulted in his being driven away by 
 his congregations, he fled to Scotland. From Scotland, 
 where, from his being " so great a malcontent, he was 
 committed for a night or two to prison," he returned to 
 England, where he stirred up dissensions in several 
 places, and published a suggestive book, " On Reform- 
 ation without tarrying for any." He was excommuni- 
 cated by the Bishop of Peterborough, and subsequently 
 (1584) terminated his association with the sect which he 
 had founded. He was finally (1589) reconciled to the 
 Church, and held the living of Thorpe Achurch, in North- 
 amptonshire, for forty years, till his death in 1640, just 
 as the shadow of those national troubles which his sect 
 helped so much to originate was beginning to fall upon 
 the country; "leaving," says Mr.Hanbur}-, "to the Church 
 of England the ample legacy of his shame. All that 
 was discreditable in him Independents remit to his 
 ultimate patrons ; the good alone that has followed his 
 career they shrink not from applauding and adopting." 
 This is a passage in style worthy of the Letters of 
 Junius," but it is singularly " independent "' of the spirit 
 which breathes in St. Paul's famous description of charity. 
 
 The principles of church government which Browne 
 introduced into England were adopted by many among 
 the Puritans, so that the sect rapidly increased. To the 
 position formerly occupied by Browne succeeded Barrow, 
 a barrister of Gray's Inn, and from him the members of 
 this sect were called " Barrowists as well as " Brownists," 
 
otlicr Religious Communions. 
 
 25 
 
 Barrow seems to have held opinions similar, in many 
 respects, to those of the Quakers. He objected to the 
 whole system of ecclesiastical government, and refused 
 to take an oath, or to use set forms of prayer. Both he 
 and his associates, Greenwood and I'enry (the author of 
 the " Martin Mar-Prelatc Tracts "), attacked the Prayer- 
 book and episcopacy with that fanatical and incurable 
 virulence which seems to be inherent in the Puritan 
 character. They maintained that episcopacy was derived 
 from Antichrist, and that they were called to found a 
 new Church, and to choose to themselves a ministry of 
 pastors, and teachers, and ciders, and deacons, as Christ 
 had appointed. Where the appointment by Christ of 
 any order of the ministry except that of the Apostolate 
 is recorded, was not stated. They were all three, w^ith 
 two others, executed at Tyburn for writing and talking 
 seditious treason, saying that the queen w^as a perjured 
 person, an enemy to religion and her people, and urging 
 the overthrow of the constitution. They were not 
 " sacrificed by a blood-guilty Protestant hierarchy," nor 
 did they " fall to the resentment of an angry prelate " 
 (Archbishop Whitgift). " The bishops," in fact, as Dr. 
 V aughan, a Congregationalist minister, says, " had been 
 disposed to a more liberal course." 
 
 Amongst other leaders of this party were Robinson, 
 beneficed near Yarmouth, who has been called, on 
 account of the influence of his writings, the " Father of 
 the modern Independents ; " Johnson, a Fellow of 
 Christ's College, Cambridge, who stated with more dis- 
 tinctness than heretofore the principle of Independency 
 in his " Confession of Faith ; " and Jacob, beneficed in 
 
26 The CJnircIi of Eit gland and 
 
 Kent, who in 1616 established a congregation at Black- 
 friars, which is commonly called "the first Independent 
 or Congregational Church in England." It was Jacob 
 who led the way to the adoption by the sect of the 
 title " Independents," in place of that of " Brownists " 
 or "Separatists," from his defining each congregation as 
 " an entire and independent body politic, endued with 
 power immediately under and from Christ, as every 
 proper Church is and ought to be." In 1620 there set 
 sail from Plymouth, in the Mayfioivcr, a party of 
 Independents, bound as "adventurers" for "New Eng- 
 land," the northern part of the colony of Virginia, which 
 had been founded in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 
 They have been called "the Pilgrim P'athers," and they 
 are represented in one of the frescoes in the Houses of 
 Parliament at Westminster, as " in the act of an 
 imaginaiy parting on a beach that never existed." 
 They are commonly supposed to have constituted the 
 bulk of English Dissenters who were forced, by expul- 
 sion from their native land through religious persecution, 
 to seek a safer, if a somewhat rude and inhospitable, 
 asylum on a foreign shore. 
 
 The truth is, that onl\- two or three out of the twenty 
 families that emigrated came from England. The rest 
 came from Holland. The party of the Independents in 
 England found it more to their interest to remain at 
 home and proclaim " liberty of conscience," while the 
 Independents who were breathing the free air of the 
 New World were proclaiming that "liberty of con- 
 science was impious ignorance." Under the leadership 
 of Oliver Cromwell, who came from the district which 
 
other Rclis'ions Communions. 
 
 <_> 
 
 2/ 
 
 had most readily received the tenets of Browne, the 
 Independents had become supreme, not only in the 
 House of Commons, but also in the army. They formed, 
 under Cromwell's training, the famous troop known as 
 " Ironsides," with whom he gained the decisive victory 
 over the Royalists at Marston Moor. Their religious 
 charter was, as v/e have seen, " liberty of conscience." 
 But, as Cromwell himself complained in an after day,, 
 "each sect lustily cries out for liberty and toleration, 
 and when they have acquired it, they will by no means 
 allow it to any but themselves." He speaks of the 
 Presbyterians as " that insolent sect which could tolerate 
 none but itself." 
 
 As the influence of the Independent Puritans- 
 increased, that of the Presbyterian Puritans grew 
 weaker. Although these two sects had sprung, it 
 would seem, from the same parent, they were most bitter 
 in their rivalry, and most vindictive in their hatred 
 of each other. "The only ecclesiastical benefit," it has 
 been said, " for which England has to thank the Inde- 
 pendents of the Commonwealth is this — that they 
 delivered this country from the then imminent danger 
 of a Presbyterian Church Establishment ; " while, again,. 
 " the death of Cromwell seem.s, humanly speaking, alone 
 to have prevented an Independent State Establishment 
 from being set up in its stead." 
 
 On the restoration of Charles II., which even the 
 Presbyterians, now that they were thrown into the back- 
 ground by the Independents, desired, and the passing 
 of the Act of Uniformity (1661), the ejected clergy 
 of the Church of England who were living had the 
 
2 8 The Chiu'ch of England and 
 
 opportunity offered them of returning to their bene- 
 fices, and the intruders, chiefly Presbyterians and In- 
 dependents, had the option of retaining those bene- 
 fices the incumbents of which had died meanwhile, 
 upon receiving ordination at the hands of the bishop. 
 Of the ci^/it ]iundrcd ministers ('' two thousand con- 
 fessors," they have been called) Avho were ejected because 
 they could not conform, the larger proportion consisted 
 of Independents. From that time (1662) they became 
 known as Nonconformists, and after the passing of the 
 Act of Toleration (1689), they formed one of the "three 
 denominations " v/ith the Presbyterians and the Baptists. 
 As members forming a united body they received 
 certain privileges, amongst which was a right to petition 
 or address the sovereign. In the next century the 
 Presbyterians, for the most part, drifted into different 
 forms of misbelief, chiefly in respect to the doctrines of 
 the Trinity, of the Divinity of our Lord, and the Atone- 
 ment. These sections of the Presbyterians became 
 merged in the Unitarian body, while the other sections 
 united with the Independents. 
 
 These " three denominations " were at first united 
 on behalf of the cause of religious and political liberty, 
 but their theological " views " were widely divergent. 
 The dissension which appeared at the end of the 
 eighteenth, and increased in the nineteenth century 
 restricted their union to occasional demonstrations in 
 the cause of political freedom, or in endeavours to free 
 themselves from the exactions of Church rates, or in reso- 
 lutions condemnatory of State establishments. In 1836 
 the Presbyterians (or, as they might at that time have 
 
other Religions Communions. 
 
 29 
 
 been described, from a theological view, Anti-Trini- 
 tarians or Unitarians) seceded from the " union," and 
 alleged that "the body of the three denominations was 
 defunct." This allegation was met by a protest on the 
 part of the Independents and Baptists, who appointed a 
 deputation to wait on the Home Secretary (Lord John 
 Russell), and communicate to him the fact that, although 
 the Presbyterians (Unitarians) had retired, "the body of 
 the three denominations continued to exist." The solu- 
 tion of this arithmetical puzzle is, that the Scottish 
 Presbyterians were substituted for the English, and 
 claimed to inherit the ancient privileges of that bod}'-. 
 Meanwhile the Unitarians contended that they were the 
 only real English Presbyterians. 
 
 While the Presbyterians had departed farther away 
 from the system of Cah in and the principles of the 
 "Westminster Confession," the Independents remained 
 conservative in their doctrinal position. They clung to 
 the traditions of their forefathers, and upheld the theology 
 of the "Assembly's Catechism." The English Presby- 
 terians (Unitarians) were enthusiastic advocates of liberal 
 principles in politics. The Independents were not, at 
 that time, as they have since become, conspicuous in the 
 defence of the political rights of the people. " The Con- 
 gregational Churches," sa}'S Dr. Stoughton, " in my early 
 days contained for the most part old-fashioned Whigs,, 
 and could not count on many advanced Liberals." In 
 the middle of the nineteenth century the old historic 
 name of "Independents" was gradually allowed to fall 
 into disuse, and the more modern name of " Congrega- 
 tionalists " was adopted. The reasons for this change of 
 
30 
 
 The Chui'ch of England and 
 
 name, which arose out of a modification of the old 
 ])rinciple.s of Independency, are succinctly given by Dr. 
 Stoughton. He says that " Independency was liable to 
 fall into the weakness of a self-assertion and individuality 
 which, in small communities, becomes jealous of every- 
 thing which seems like a yoke of bondage. Seeing this, 
 some among the Independents sought to gather the 
 bonds of relationship amongst Churches of their own 
 order into a comprehensive girdle. Each Church being 
 a congregation of individual persons, and the entire 
 denomination being a congregation of Churches, they 
 wished to make the fact more manifest than it had been, 
 and therefore brought into use the Congregational name, 
 and brought out the social as well as the independent 
 side of their Church principles." This was the object of 
 the great Congregational movement of 1831. 
 
 II. It only remains for me now to give an account 
 of the distinctive principles of Church organization and 
 government which are held by the members of this reli- 
 gious communion, and the chief grounds on which they 
 justify their separation from the Church of England. The 
 ■chief principle of the Congregationalists is, that " each 
 particular Church, i.e. each congregation of Christians, is 
 an independent body," which has within itself the right — 
 (l) to settle its own faith and doctrines, and mode of 
 Avorship ; (2) to elect or depose its pastors and Church 
 officers ; (3) to exercise discipline over its members ; 
 (4) to be free from the control of an external authority, 
 ecclesiastical or civil. 
 
 With the view, however, of " strengthening the 
 tfraternal relations of the Congregational Churches, and 
 
other Religious Comumniojis. 
 
 31 
 
 •of facilitating- co-operation in everything affecting their 
 common interests," the Congregational Union was 
 formed in 1831. Two years after its formation the 
 Union agreed upon a " Description in Thirty-three 
 Articles of the Faith, Order, and Discipline of the Con- 
 gregational or ' Independent Dissenters.' " This de- 
 claration is said to be intended simply as a statement of 
 the theological position of the members of the Union. 
 " It is obviously inconsistent with the principles of 
 •Congregationalism," says Dr. Dale, " that any central 
 authority should attempt to impose a creed either on 
 the ministers or on the members of Congregational 
 Churches. If the attempt were made, a creed could not 
 be enforced. Each Church [i.e. congregation] stands 
 apart, and claims to be under the immediate government 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ. Loyalty to Him compels it 
 to resist the interference of any synod or assembly with 
 cither its ' faith or its discipline.' " On the other hand. 
 Dr. Davidson, in his Congregational Lecture in 1848, on 
 the " Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament," says 
 that " Congregationalists are wrong in splitting up what 
 ought to be one Church, the company of believers in 
 modern towns, into several Churches, each with its 
 ■own pastor, which, in their independent individuality, 
 are patches and shreds, often incapable of a right self- 
 government, because they have lost sight of the unity 
 and kind of a government existing in the earliest 
 Churches." 
 
 "Where two or three meet together in My Name, 
 there am I in the midst of them." This prophetic 
 utterance of our Lord is taken by the Congregationalists 
 
32 
 
 The ClnircJi of England and 
 
 as explaining and justifying their independent position. 
 ]?ut when more than this indefinitely meagre number 
 of persons desires to join a " Church," while it is con- 
 sidered contrary to Congregationalist principles to 
 impose a creed which, like the most ancient forms of 
 the creed, might be even condensed into a single 
 sentence, it is a common, and I believe an unvarying, 
 practice to impose as a condition of membership the 
 "testimony" of the "Church inquirers," and to deter- 
 mine the admission of a candidate by the vote of the 
 majority. An investigation into the private religious 
 experience of the candidates, essentially inquisitorial in. 
 its character, is made by "visitors," who report the 
 results of their inquiries at the next monthly meeting 
 of the Church, and the candidate, if accepted by 
 vote, is received into membership. 
 
 The Congregationalists believe that their system of 
 independent Churches is distinctly delineated in the 
 pages of the New Testament. Each Church is, for 
 spiritual purposes, under its own " pastor," " elder," or 
 " president," which they consider is equivalent to 
 " bishop " in the New Testament ; and for administrative 
 and financial purposes, under a " diaconate." The 
 " deacons," too, are held to be really " elders " or 
 "bishops," and the " pastor " is the presiding " elder" or 
 " bishop." The duties of the " deacon " and " deacon- 
 esses " include that of " visiting and comforting the 
 sick and the poor." Where the whole control and ad- 
 ministration of Church business is left to the pastor and 
 Church officers, as representativ^es of the congregation, 
 the system or polity may be described as "Intra-Con- 
 
other ReligioiLs Couitminioiis. 
 
 gregational Presbyterianism." Where the control is 
 practically in the hands of the pastor, the system may 
 be described as " P3piscopalian Independency." There 
 are evidently rare opportunities in Congregationalism 
 for the evolution of an infinite variety of species, and it 
 is the very fact of this independent but necessary dis- 
 similitude of character, which refuses to be reduced to 
 one type, that makes it so difficult to catalogue Con- 
 gregationalists as a religious "communion." 
 
 There is one feature or characteristic, however, in all 
 the " Independent Churches " upon which we can fix as 
 indicating a common origin and object. They are the 
 advocates and supporters of "the voluntary system," 
 as it has been called. They are opposed to any form 
 of alliance between " the Church " and " the State ; " and 
 to endowments out of what they term " i^ublic " or 
 " national " property. They maintain that " a Church 
 cannot receive support from the State without sacrificing 
 some measure of its spiritual freedom, and that a 
 Church must therefore decline to accept political 
 privileges and maintenance from national revenues in 
 order to preserve its loyalty to Christ." 
 
 In the time of the Commonwealth, when Independents 
 as well as Baptists and Presbyterians were admitted by 
 Cromwell's "triers" into the benefices of the Church of 
 England, they took advantage of their legal rights to 
 receive tithes and other endowments which they held to 
 have been appropriated to the maintenance of a "godly 
 ministry." They were ready again to be the recipients 
 of this form of what is incorrectly called "national 
 property "in the reign of William III., " provided that 
 
 D 
 
34 The CImi'ch of Englaiid and 
 
 the Church services were modified." They accepted 
 their share of the Rcgiiiui Donum of;/^ioooa year, 
 granted by George I. ostensibly for the support of 
 ministers' widows. It is true that in 1834 an opposition 
 was offered by some amongst the Independents and 
 Baptists to the receipt of this royal bounty, but it 
 continued to be voted in the annual parliamentary 
 estimates until the year 185 1. In the year 1833 the 
 members of the Congregational Union resolved that " the 
 institutions of the gospel ordained by Christ being 
 sufficient for their own purposes without the aid of the 
 civil power, the application of this power for the enforce- 
 ment of these institutions must be considered as a 
 reflection on the wisdom of Christ and an offence against 
 His authority." This resolution, which first formally 
 recognized the principle of the voluntar}- system, also 
 complained of grievances, since redressed, in the levying 
 of Church rates, and in the laws of m.arriage and burial. 
 By means of the publications of the " Ecclesiastical 
 Knowledge Society," the Congregationalists sought to 
 diffuse their opinions on the voluntary system, and to 
 bring the whole question of " State establishments " 
 within the range of practical politics. Thus a con- 
 troversy which had at first been conducted on purely 
 religious grounds, namely, whether the principles of 
 Church membership and organization, as derived from 
 the New Testament, were Episcopalian or Congrega- 
 tional, came to be in the last degree political. Was 
 not, it was asked in effect, the New Testament impatient 
 of " establishments," and in favour of the "voluntary 
 system," or " willinghood," as it came to be called. 
 
othei'' Religions Co7nnninions. 
 
 35 
 
 Were not the apostles the champions of " reh'gious 
 equahty ? " 
 
 In 1844 Mr. Edward Miall, M.P. for Bradford, the 
 promoter and editor of the Nonconformist, advocated 
 the formation of a "British Anti-State Church Associa- 
 tion," the pioneer of the " Society for the Liberation of 
 Reh'gion from State Patronage and Control." A primary 
 rule adopted by this society was, that the proposed 
 object should be pursued " without reference to sectarian 
 or party distinction " — " a rule," says Dr. Stoughton, 
 " capable of being explained differently by different 
 persons." 
 
 It is on these two grounds — (i) that each congregation 
 is by Christ's will a Christian Church, and independent 
 of external control ; and (2) that a Church, in order to 
 preserve its loyalty to Christ, must decline to accept 
 political privileges and maintenance from national 
 revenues — that the Congrcgationalist communions main- 
 tain the necessity for their separation from communion 
 with the Church of England. 
 
 The fallacy in the former of these propositions 
 lies hid in the phrase " by Christ's will," for, in His 
 divine wisdom. He left the organization of the Church 
 to be regulated by those upon whom the plenary gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit were bestowed after His ascension ; 
 and the outcome of their illumined guidance, if we 
 are to trust the history of the Primitive Church of the 
 first three centuries, was an organization ultimately 
 diocesan. The bishop was the chief pastor of many 
 Churches. Thus the two systems were wisely and 
 
36 The ChuTcJi of Eiigland and 
 
 happily combined, much as we have them at this day, 
 with some modification, in the Church of England. 
 Each Church, that is, each congregation, is independent 
 of every other church. It has its own chief pastor or 
 incumbent, its own parish {paroc/na, originally the 
 bishop's jurisdiction), its own congregation or parish- 
 ioners, and its own endowments or sources of income. 
 Thus the individual position of each Church is amply 
 secured, but it is not isolated. It is part of a larger 
 organization or union of Churches under one chief 
 pastor. There are, it must be admitted, manifest advan- 
 tages in this comprehensive and yet individual system ; 
 and it is not historically exact to say that it is anti- 
 scriptural, any more than it is historically exact to say 
 that Congregationalism or Independency is absolutely 
 scriptural or " according to the will of Christ." 
 
 The fallacy in the latter proposition lies hid in the 
 phrase, "maintenance from national revenues." As I shall 
 have occasion to refer to this phrase when I come to treat 
 of the endowments of the Church of England, I need 
 not do more than refer to it on this occasion. As the 
 Congregationalists affirm that they do not impose a 
 creed upon their members, it is not easy to determine 
 how far their belief agrees with or differs from that of 
 the Church ; but in points of essential doctrine they are 
 undoubtedly at one in their belief with the Catholic 
 Church. There seems to be a growing desire among 
 the " Free Churches " at the present day to become 
 wholly independent of doctrinal standards, even in their 
 trust-deeds, upon the fulfilment of the conditions of 
 which they arc permitted by the State to hold their 
 
otha' Religious Comiminions. 
 
 37 
 
 property. " For Congregationalism," says Dr. Dale, 
 "disbelieves in the efficacy of any legal securities for 
 perpetuating the evangelical faith, and places its whole 
 confidence in the permanent presence of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ in the Church." 
 
38 
 
 The ChurclL of England and 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 THE BAPTISTS. 
 
 It is the recognition of an important truth when we 
 find each religious communion, as it separates from the 
 Church, and in some cases also from a parent of its own 
 kind, making a serious appeal to the scriptures of the 
 New Testament and the practice of the apostolic age 
 to defend and sanction its doctrines and institutions. 
 Practically, however, in dealing with the claims advanced 
 by each of the various religious sects to I'epresent the 
 original or, as it may be called, the purest form of the 
 Christian Church, the appeals which are made, in defence 
 of their position, to the New Testament may be put on 
 one side. For these claims are made to rest chiefly 
 on the varying interpretations of isolated passages. 
 And such passages from the Scriptures are, in some 
 respects, like the earthworks thrown up in haste by 
 a besieging force : they only cover what would be 
 otherwise a weak and dangerous position, and they 
 serve for a time as a shelter, from behind which the 
 attacking party may take aim at their adversaries and 
 retire under protection. 
 
 The New Testament, it has been often said, and it 
 
other Religious Coninmnions. 
 
 39 
 
 will bear repetition, is a book instinct with principles, 
 but not with ecclesiastical canons or rules ; and we can 
 only discover the outward constitution and practice of 
 the Church (its " ecclesiastical polity," as it is called) in 
 the apostolic age, so far as we take the New Testament 
 for our guide, by a process of inference from the brief and, 
 as it were, marginal references in the recorded acts and 
 teaching of the apostles. It is clear, I think, that if this 
 process of inference, unchecked by comparison with sub- 
 sequent church history, is allowed to have " free course," 
 it Avill be not so much " glorified " as nullified. Calvin, 
 for instance, as we have seen, from one or two isolated 
 passages in St. Paul's Epistles, plainly inferred what was 
 the great charter of Church government. He inferred 
 that the ministry of the Church in the apostolic age was 
 Presbyterian in form, and its government that of an 
 oligarchy of lay elders. Browne, at a later date, in- 
 ferred from certain selected texts that the " Church " is 
 not merely a convenient name under which to group a 
 number of individual but co-opcrant units into one body, 
 but that each of these units represented by a "con- 
 gregation " is complete in itself as a " Church." Irving, 
 or his followers, inferred from the New Testament that 
 the gift of unknown tongues clearly indicated the divine 
 authority for a new apostolatc and new order of ministry. 
 The Quakers and the Plymouth Brethren have inferred 
 that there is no sanction in the pages of the New Testa- 
 ment for any separate order of ministry. The former 
 sect infer from the same pages that the sacraments of 
 Baptism and the Holy Eucharist are not essential 
 ordinances in tlie Church ; while the latter sect infer their 
 
40 The Church of England and 
 
 perpetual obligation under the forms of " immersion " 
 and "breaking bread." There is the same divergence of 
 conclusions in the case of both essential doctrine and 
 theological propositions. This very serious divergence 
 of itself proclaims the mistake of supposing that the New 
 Testament was designed, as if it had been composed by 
 one writer in the methodical order of a treatise, to 
 present the perfected picture of an infallible and un- 
 changeable form and order of Church government or 
 discipline, or a detailed system of doctrine. 
 
 When we call to mind that there is not an heretical 
 opinion or a form of schism, ancient or modern, which 
 has not hesitated to find in the scriptures of the New 
 Testament a solemn authority for the schism or the 
 heresy, we have reason to be thankful that there was 
 for four centuries at least, and those nearest to the time 
 of the original revelation, an undivided Church ordained 
 by her Lord to be the witness and keeper of Holy Writ, 
 and having authority derived immediately from her 
 ever-living Head in controversies of faith. We are 
 content to accept this the oldest authority of all, since 
 some authority, it is clear, we must accept, in determin- 
 ing the question of all necessary doctrine which depends 
 on the interpretation of disconnected passages in the 
 Holy Scriptures. I have been led into these reflections 
 partly by the impression left on my mind by the con- 
 troversies respecting certain of the main doctrines of the 
 Christian religion from the earliest times, and especially 
 as they have been renewed, with so much earnestness 
 and some bitterness, from the sixteenth to the nineteenth 
 century in Europe, and chicfl}- in England ; and partly 
 
other Religiotts Comvmnions. 
 
 41 
 
 because they lead up to the question which is now to 
 come before us — On what grounds did the Baptists in 
 the seventeenth century secede from the rest of the 
 Puritans, and take the still further step of separation 
 from the Church ? 
 
 I. In the first place, let me recount briefly the history 
 of this communion. The Baptists in England were an 
 offshoot of the Brownists or early sect of the Indepen- 
 dents, and they formed themselves into a separate body in 
 the reign of Charles I. (There is no historical connection 
 between the Baptists in J^ngland and the Anabaptists 
 of German3^ Switzerland, and Holland, and the only 
 doctrinal connection is to be found in the fact that both of 
 these sects rejected the baptism of infants, on the ground 
 that the practice has no definite authority in the pages 
 of the New Testament s The Anabaptists in Germany, 
 under the leadership o^Munzer, were the chief abettors 
 of " The Peasants' War." They were the socialists and 
 communists of that day, who had suffered from the 
 tyrannical and extortionate demands of the feudal 
 nobilit}'. They were the objects of severe persecution 
 from their Lutheran opponents, and were for a time 
 suppressed ; but nine years after the death of Munzer, 
 the sect was revived at Munster, in Westphalia, under 
 the leadership of John of Haarlem, a baker, and John of 
 Leyden, a ,journe}-man tailor. When the latter was 
 killed at the siege of Munster, the Anabaptists gradually 
 diminished, and some of them fled to England about 
 1525, where they formed the nucleus of a sect which 
 caused much trouble to the government of this country 
 for many years. 
 
42 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 But the first formation of the " Baptists " as a 
 separate religious communion in P2ngland dates from 
 the year 1633. Some members of a congregation of 
 Protestant Dissenters of the Independent persuasion at 
 Blackfriars, in London, finding that the "congregation 
 kept not their first principles of separation, and being 
 also convinced that baptism was not to be administered 
 to infants, but only to such as professed faith in Christ, 
 desired to constitute themselves a distinct and separate 
 Church, and their proposal was agreed to by the 
 Independent persuasion." point of Church polity, 
 the Baptists remained Independents. But they held 
 that they were justified in forming themselves into a 
 separate communion on these three grounds: (i) for 
 the stricter maintenance of Calvinistic doctrines ; (2) 
 for the exercise of a stricter discipline ; and (3) for the 
 practice of a mode of baptism in stricter accordance 
 with the words of Scripture and the practice of the 
 
 Several otner congregations of Baptists were rapidly 
 forrned in London and in different parts of the country. 
 They enlisted in large numbers into the parliamentary 
 army, and so many of Cromwell's supporters belonged to 
 this sect that it attained considerable political influence 
 during the period of the Great Rebellion, 
 
 Out of the eight hundred ministers who were 
 ejected from the benefices which they held for refusal 
 to conform to the laws of the realm at the Restora- 
 tion, there were thirty-five Baptists. Shortly before the 
 Restoration the Baptists divided themselves into two 
 classes: (i) The "General" or "Arminian" Baptists, 
 
other Religions Communions. 
 
 43 
 
 and (2) the " Particular " or " Calvinistic " Baptists. 
 These latter were again divided into {a) " Free or 
 Open Communionists," and (/;) " Strict or Close Com- 
 munionists." 
 
 (i) The General or Arminian Baptists were so called 
 because they held to the tenets of Arniinius on universal 
 redemption," or that Christ "has redeemed all mankind." 
 They seceded from the original sect, or " Particular 
 Baptists," about 1691. But in 1710 there was a division 
 among them, some becoming Unitarians and joining 
 themselves to that body, and others adhering to the 
 Arminian tenets and calling themselves " The New 
 Connexion of Baptists." (2) The Particular or Calvin- 
 istic Baptists continue to hold to the doctrine of the 
 redemption of the few who are " elect," and to Calvin's 
 tenets respecting predestination to life, and particular 
 election. The entire controversy between these two 
 main sections of the Baptists turns on the question why 
 one can be saved and another cannot. Those who 
 hold that such a question, as being within the category 
 of the "secret things Avhich belong to the Lord our 
 God," must remain here unanswered, will be content to 
 trust to " the promises of God as they are generally set 
 forth in Holy Scripture." Of the two classes into which 
 they arc subdivided, (a) the Open Communionists admit 
 to their forms of administration of the Lord's Supper 
 both those who have been baptized in infancy as well 
 as those who have been baptized only as adults ; and 
 (^) the Close Communionists admit only the latter cla.ss. 
 Both of these sections, as well as the congregations of 
 the New Connexion, are admitted through their repre- 
 
44 The Church of England and 
 
 sentativcs to the " Baptist Union," which was founded in 
 1S12. 
 
 II. The purely Calvinistic views respecting "the 
 elect," for the maintenance of which the Baptists at first 
 separated from the Independents, are really at the foun- 
 dation of their particular discipline and ritual. In the 
 " Confession of Faith," put forth in 1689, and republished 
 by Mr. Spurgeon in 1863, it is said, " The Catholic or 
 Universal Church, which (with respect to the internal 
 work of the spirit of truth and grace) may be called 
 invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect," 
 that is, of such only as have made a credible profession 
 of faith in Christ, and repentance towards God. Here 
 we are met again with the Puritan notion — namely, that 
 the Church consists only of hol\- and godly persons, 
 that is, of " professors," who have given what is taken for 
 evidence of holiness and goodness. From this premiss 
 it is easy to draw the conclusion that as " of such [only] 
 is the kingdom of heaven," the entrance into that 
 kingdom through the initiatory rite of baptism is open 
 only to them, and must be denied to unconscious infants 
 and to those immature persons who have given no 
 personal evidence of repentance and faith. " But the 
 mistake made by the Baptists is to suppose that it is 
 the plan of the Church to admit so many ignorant and 
 immature persons by baptism within the fold, and there 
 to leave them. Our Lord's commission to the apostles 
 whom He had chosen was (St. ^latt. xxviii. 19) ' Make 
 disciples of all nations ;' but how? (i) Baptize them ; (2) 
 teach them. So the Church was designed by its Divine 
 Founder to be not merel\- a social but an educational 
 
other Religions Comnmnions. 
 
 45 
 
 society. If infants arc baptized, it is that, having been 
 admitted within the school of Christ, they may be taught, 
 when they come to an age of understanding, the chief 
 doctrines and duties of the religion of Christ by means 
 of such simple forms as the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, 
 and the Commandments, and the authorized explanation 
 of their teaching." 
 
 It would seem as if the doctrine' of " Baptismal 
 regeneration " was only imperfectly understood, and 
 in consequence perfectly misrepresented. For instance, 
 Mr. Spurgeon, in a sermon on this subject (July 
 5, 1864), said as follows: — "The man who has been 
 baptized or sprinkled says, ' I am saved. I am a member 
 of Christ. Call ine to repentance? Call me to lead a 
 new life ? No matter what my life and conversation is, 
 I am a child of God. It is true, I drink, and swear, and 
 all that, but, you know, I am an inheritor of the kingdom 
 of heaven.' " There is no intelligent and moderately 
 educated member of the Church who does not know 
 that this is not a fair representation of the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration. At the same time, it must be 
 confessed that the authorized Church doctrine has in 
 some cases been so obscured and surrounded with so 
 much mist and such hazy statements as to lead to the 
 drifting away of many sincere but half-educated people 
 into various forms of dissent. The " Church doctrine " 
 concerning baptism, as Mr. Sadler has so clearly ex- 
 plained and verified, is really " Bible truth." Having in 
 view chiefly the baptism of infants, it teaches, just as 
 the Baptists teach, that baptism is the divinely appointed 
 mode of entrance into the kingdom of heaven. It teaches 
 
46 
 
 The ChnrcJi of England and 
 
 that as each human being is ordinarily born into some 
 family or household, so he is born anew or again at 
 baptism into the family and household of Christ. Thus 
 a baptized person and a Christian arc really terms which 
 have the same meaning. The first birth is of human, 
 the second birth is of divine, origin. The former is bv 
 nature, the latter is by the Spirit. The former is from 
 below, the latter is "from above." Our natural birth, again, 
 brings us into responsible relationship with our natural 
 parents ; our spiritual new birth brings us into responsible 
 relationship with our Father who is in heaven, and with 
 the Church, which is our spiritual mother. Our natural 
 birth confers upon us the rights and privileges, and im- 
 poses upon us the duties, which belong to us as children 
 of our parents ; our spiritual new birth confers privi- 
 leges and imposes duties as having made us " children of 
 God and joint-heirs with Christ."' We may despise our 
 birthright, our natural privileges, and neglect our natural 
 duties ; so we may despise our spiritual birthright — 
 that is, the grace which is given to each one (who does 
 not or cannot put a barrier in the wa} ) in and through 
 the sacrament of holy baptism, — and we may neglect our 
 spiritual duties. Again, we may resume the performance 
 of our natural duties, and renew our claim, like the 
 younger son in the parable, to our natural privileges. 
 So we may, after baptism— that is, after we have received 
 the Holy Ghost— " depart from grace given, and fall into 
 sin, and by the grace of God wc ma\- rise again and 
 amend our lives." If, then, there is no special difficulty 
 in understanding what is done in us, and for us, in the 
 operations of nature, is there anything especially difficult 
 
other Relizioits Commnnions. 
 
 47 
 
 in understanding and accepting what is done b\- the 
 operation of the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 " Baptismal regeneration " is simply a definite and 
 intelligible form of words to express what I suppose 
 the majority of those who accept the teaching of Christ 
 believe, namely, that a new or second birth of the 
 spirit takes place in and through the sacrament of bap- 
 tism. The " outward visible sign," or " matter " of the 
 Sacrament, is the element of water, together with the 
 divinely appointed words or "form," "Into the name 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 The " inward spiritual grace " of the sacrament is the 
 gift of the " new birth unto righteousness." " Regenera- 
 tion " has not the same meaning here as when we speak 
 of the " regeneration of society," or the like. It is not 
 to be confounded with " conversion," or " renewal." The 
 distinction is carefully preserved in the collect for 
 Christmas Day. " Grant that we, having been regenerate, 
 may be daily renewed by Thy Holy Spirit." Thus it is 
 not in accord ance with truth to say that " the holding 
 the doctrine of baptismal regeneration by the High 
 Church School [the words ' High ' and ' School ' might 
 be left out] precludes the absolute necessity of any sub - 
 sequent change or renewal." But we may go a step 
 further. We are admitted by baptism, as is implied 
 into the fellowship of Christ's religion ; we are adopted 
 into the family and household of Christ, to be educated 
 and to come under all the healthful and elevating 
 influences of the family life in His Church. We are 
 placed in that family to grow up by slow and, as it 
 happens, by interrupted steps— as in the family life on 
 
48 The ChiircJi of England and 
 
 earth, sometimes ailing and sickly, and sometimes 
 sorrowful, and sometimes in health and joy, so some- 
 times failing in self-mastery, and sometimes falling away, 
 and sometimes renewed in spiritual strength — to grow 
 up into Christian manhood, " to the measure of the 
 stature of the fulness of Christ." 
 
 We are told that the baptism of infants rests upon 
 no specific command in the New Testament, and we 
 admit it. Yet neither is there any specific command not 
 to baptize them. The truth is, that in the early days 
 of Christianity the converts would be necessarily up- 
 grown (adult) persons, and these only were at the first 
 baptized, just as the Baptists maintain. But St. Peter's 
 words were not without a predictive meaning when, on 
 the Day of Pentecost (Whit Sunday), he thus addressed 
 the company of the disciples : " The promise is unto you 
 and your children " (Acts ii. 39). I pass over the 
 practice (to which I made reference at the opening of 
 this lecture) of appealing to the New Testament for 
 isolated texts in favour of every particular detail of 
 Church ritual or discipline, because (l) it implies that 
 the guidance of the Holy Spirit, although promised, was 
 not bestowed on the apostles ; and (2) it would involve 
 the abolition of much that is dear, and many points that 
 are common to all Christians. I would rather refer to 
 the fair and guarded, yet distinct statement of Article 
 XXVII.: "The baptism of infants is any wise [ovinhio) 
 to be retained in the Church," grounded on the dogmatic 
 fact " as being most agreeable {optimc congniaf) with 
 the institution of Christ." " Whatever virtues," says 
 Bishop Forbes, " accompany that newness of life which 
 
other Religious Communions. 49 
 
 is the special grace of baptism, infants obtain them in 
 habit if not in act, of which they are incapable. Just as 
 one asleep may have the habit of virtue, but while 
 sleeping he is prevented from exercising it." That 
 remission of sin (in the case of infants, of original sin 
 only) is granted to them through the faith of others who 
 are their sponsors, is not less certain than that to the 
 man sick of the palsy our Lord said, " seeing their faith " 
 — the faith of those who brought him to Jesus — " Son, 
 thy sins be forgiven thee." 
 
 There are three ways in which the earnest Church- 
 man may meet, and perhaps overcome, the difficulties 
 of the Baptist. First, he may be more careful in the 
 selection of sponsors, in order that the just requirements 
 of the Church with respect to the after education of the 
 baptized infant may be observed. For that is one of 
 the main reasons for the institution of " sponsors," 
 which has come down to us from times when the Church 
 was working its way among heathen populations. The 
 very fact of answering (being sponsor) for another person 
 implies a measure of responsibility on our part towards 
 that person. Secondly, he may encourage his own 
 children, or those for whom he has acted as sponsor, or 
 any others whom he may be able to influence, to attend 
 to the instruction given in church at the public " cate- 
 chizing." This is certainly the most intelligent and 
 fruitful method of calling upon children " to hear 
 Sermons." Thirdly, he may fulfil his responsible obliga- 
 tions by gathering in candidates for Confirmation, so 
 that by the laying on of hands after the manner of the 
 apostles, the bishop may complete and set the "seal" 
 
50 
 
 TJie CImrch of England and 
 
 of his apostolic authority to all the admissions by 
 Baptism into the Church of Christ which have been 
 made by the priests and deacons of his diocese. If the 
 Baptists shall have reminded Churchmen of these duties 
 their testimony will not have been in vain. 
 
other Religious Communions. 51 
 
 LFXTURE IV. 
 
 THE UNITARIANS. 
 
 At the period of the restoration of the Church and 
 the Throne of England in 1661, the Puritans were chiefly 
 either Presbyterians, or Independents, and Baptists, who 
 differed from the Independents at first only on the 
 question of adult baptism. On the banner of the 
 Independents, in their early days, was inscribed the 
 motto " Liberty of Conscience." The Presbyterians, on 
 the other hand, as Oliver Cromwell said, were "an 
 insolent sect that could tolerate none but itself" The 
 eight hundred Puritans who refused to conform to 
 the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, 
 and were in consequence ejected from the benefices 
 from which the lawful incumbent had been previously 
 ejected, became known as Nonconformists. " The 
 greater number of the ejected members were Inde- 
 pendents who were much less inclined to accept the 
 episcopal form of government than the Presbyterians, 
 who had already lived under its shadow for about three- 
 quarters of a century." For a time the Puritans who 
 held to the belief that the Presbyterian form of Church 
 government had been ordained by Christ, and the 
 
The ChurcJi of England and 
 
 Puritans who, under the titles of Independents and 
 Baptists, maintained that the Congregational system 
 was in accordance with the will of Christ, formed one 
 communion, and worshipped under one roof But it 
 was not long before important differences arose. The 
 Independents became less tolerant of any deviation 
 from the tenets of Calvin. The Presbyterians yielded 
 less and less obedience to those tenets, refused to be 
 fettered by the bondage of subscription to a creed, and 
 set up as an infallible authority their own interpretations 
 of the Bible. After the passing of the Toleration Act 
 in 1689, the Presbyterian Nonconformists increased in 
 numbers. It is asserted that there were as many as 
 eight hundred congregations of Presbyterians distributed 
 throughout the several counties of England. They 
 formed one of the " three denominations " (the others 
 being Independents and Baptists) who were recognized 
 by the State, and, as members of a body corporate, had 
 the right to petition the crown. In 1 69 1 an attempt was 
 made to effect a doctrinal union between the Presby- 
 terians and Independents, but dissensions having arisen 
 in consequence of the preaching of Antinomian doctrines 
 by some amongst the latter sect, the proposals for union 
 came to an end, and the Presbyterian congregations 
 gradually adopted Arian or Socinian, or, as they came 
 to be called, Unitarian views. 
 
 I. The Unitarians, as a distinct religious communion 
 in England, are a product of the eighteenth century. 
 But the first person who is known to have promulgated 
 the opinion of the Arians and Socinians in Englana 
 lived in the previous century. The Rev. John Bidie 
 
other Religious Commtinions. 
 
 53 
 
 was master of the grammar school at Gloucester. In 
 1645 declared his opposition to the propositions 
 respecting the doctrine of the Trinity as they are set 
 forth in the Athanasian Creed. He maintained that he 
 had arrived at the conclusions which he held purely by 
 a solitary study of the Bible, and appealed to the well- 
 known aphorism of Chillingworth, " The Bible, and the 
 Bible only, the religion of Protestants." He was im- 
 prisoned for holding heretical opinions, and in 1648 he 
 was condemned to death by the zealous Puritan divines 
 in the Westminster Assembly, but was saved by the 
 Parliamentary army. Cromwell procured his release 
 from prison, and allowed him a pension of ^25 a year. 
 But his opinions were so distasteful to the Puritans 
 that he was banished to the Scilly Islands ; and at the 
 Restoration he was again thrown into prison, where he 
 died in 1662. 
 
 Unitarianism, proscribed alike by Conformists and 
 Nonconformists, and denied toleration in express terms 
 equally with the Romanists by the very Toleration Act 
 itself, sank into obscurity for the remainder of the seven- 
 teenth century. Its principles were resuscitated at the 
 close of that century when, through the liberality of Mr. 
 Thomas Firmin, a wealthy draper in London, several 
 books and pamphlets were published, in which the doc- 
 trines of the Trinity, and of the Deity of Christ were 
 examined and condemned. 
 
 In 1712 Dr. Samuel Clarke, Rector of St. James's, 
 Westminster, and one of the court chaplains, published 
 a treatise on the " Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity," in 
 which he advocated Unitarian opinions, and only escaped 
 
54 The Church of England and 
 
 the censure of Convocation by retracting his statements. 
 He refused a bishopric, it is said, because he was unwill- 
 ing to sign the Thirty-nine Articles ; but, with singular 
 inconsistency, he retained his benefice, which was held 
 on the same terms. " His want of candour, which Fair- 
 bairn considers ' the characteristic of the party,' prevented 
 him from seeing that the retaining his benefice implied 
 adherence to subscription." Subscription to this doc- 
 trinal test was made the subject of a widespread griev- 
 ance. It was contended that these articles were intended 
 to be interpreted in a Calvinistic sense, while most of 
 the clergy who signed them were Arminians. This is 
 a mistake which even more modern writers, such as 
 Macaulay, have made, who, to show the comprehensive, 
 or it may be latitudinarian, character of the Church of 
 England, describes the " Liturgy as Arniinian and the 
 Articles as Calvinistic." In " His Majesty's Declaration," 
 which was prefixed to the Thirty-nine Articles in 1628, 
 it is stated that the several articles are to be taken in 
 their " literal and grammatical sense." The Calvinist 
 Puritans saw in this declaration a special condemnation 
 of their teaching, and sought to stigmatize the " literal 
 sense " as Jesuitical and Arminian. 
 
 The controversy to which the writings of Dr. Clarke, 
 Whiston, and others within the Church of England, 
 !Zave rise, drew forth some of the ablest defenders of 
 the orthodox doctrine that any age has produced. We 
 are indebted to this controversy for the famous works 
 of Bishop Bull on the " Defence of the Nicene Creed ;" 
 Bishop Warburton's " Divine Legation of Moses ; " and 
 Bishop Butler's " Analogy of Religion, Natural and Re- 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 55 
 
 vealed," which is said to have been the result of twenty 
 years' labour, and to have been prompted by a standard 
 work on Deism, entitled " Christianity as old as the 
 Creation," written by Tindal, a Fellow of All Souls' 
 College, Oxford, who became a Romanist and subse- 
 quently reverted. But the controversy was raging as 
 fiercely among the dissenters. Two Presbyterian minis- 
 ters in the West of England were accused of holding 
 Arian views. The whole body of dissenting ministers, 
 of Presbyterians and Independents in equal numbers, 
 met at Salters' Hall in 17 19. On the vote being taken 
 whether one of the ministers accused (Mr. Pierce, of 
 Exeter) should be ejected from his pastoral charge, 
 " seventy-three creed-subscribing Presbyterians voted in 
 favour of freedom of thought, and sixty-nine creed- 
 hating Independents insisted that there was no way of 
 putting down such fatal errors but by the imposition of 
 tests," such as that which the ministers in Devonshire 
 and Cornwall had in this case imposed. When it was 
 carried by a majority of four votes, that no particular 
 declaration of faith in the doctrine of the Trinity should 
 be required, the Independents seceded, formed a fresh 
 meeting of their own supporters, and subscribed to the 
 first of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. Pierce, 
 being locked out of his chapel by the trustees, opened a 
 chapel for the promulgation of Unitarian doctrines, and 
 was supported by about three hundred members of his 
 former congregation. Several other dissenting preachers 
 were dismissed from their posts by the vote of the 
 majority in their congregations about the same time. 
 In 1766 Archdeacon Blackburne published his "Con- 
 
56 
 
 TJie Church of England and 
 
 fessional," in which he supports the maxim of Chilling- 
 worth, and contends that a subscription of conformity to 
 the Bible is all that should be required of the clergy. 
 He was a decided Calvinist and an anti-Trir>itarian of 
 some kind, but his conscience was easily pacified. It 
 was what has been called " a domesticated conscience." 
 His "wife and children " stood in the way of his honestly 
 resigning his benefice. His son-in-law, the Rev. Theo- 
 philus Lindsey Vicar of Catterick, in Yorkshire, was the 
 originator of the " Feathers Tavern Petition." This was 
 a petition to the House of Commons to alter the form 
 of subscription, and it received its name from the tavern 
 in the Strand where the petitioners met in 1772. Paley, 
 in his defence of this petition, says, that the only persons 
 who at that time believed in the Thirty-nine Articles 
 were the Methodists, who were refused ordination by 
 the bishops. The petition was twice rejected by the 
 House of Commons, and the grievance which it set forth 
 was described by Edmund Burke as " infinitesimal." 
 When Lindsey saw there was no hope of any change 
 being introduced in the form of clerical subscription, he 
 resigned his benefice in 1773, and went to London, where 
 he opened a chapel in Essex Street, Strand, in which he 
 continued to preach until his death in 1808. 
 
 From the opening of this chapel is to be dated the rise 
 of modern Unitarianism in England. Its leading men 
 v/ere Priestley and Belsham. Priestley, as he says of 
 himself, " came to embrace what is called the heterodox 
 side of every question." He had been a Calvinist, then 
 an Arminian, then an Arian, a Socinian, and eventually a 
 Unitarian. He published a work called "The Corruption 
 
other Religious Communions. 57 
 
 of Christianity," in which he maintained that the doctrine 
 of the Trinity was no older than the Council of Nicaea 
 (a.d. 354) ; that it was the result of a gradual corruption 
 of the Gospels ; and that before this innovation the faith 
 of the whole Christian Church was distinctly Unitarian. 
 He avowed his belief in the non-inspiration of the 
 Scriptures, and held that as our Lord was merely a 
 man, it was an act of idolatry to worship Him. The 
 publication of this book led to the greatest controversy 
 of the latter half of the eighteenth century. Priestley's 
 antagonist was Archdeacon (afterwards Bishop) Horsley, 
 whom, in one of his counter-pamphlets, he describes as 
 " this incorrigible dignitary." The triumph of Horsley 
 was complete. He proved that Priestley was a sciolist 
 in history and criticism ; that he was neither a scholar 
 nor a theologian, and was quite unfit to write on such a 
 subject as he had undertaken. Priestley was the pastor 
 of a chapel in Birmingham, and in 1791, when the 
 " Birmingham Riots " took place, his chapel and private 
 house were destroyed by the mob, who regarded him as 
 a revolutionist, and an enemy to order and religion. 
 He emigrated to America in 1794, and died there ten 
 years later. 
 
 After Priestley's removal, the Unitarians received 
 very efficient support from the writings of Thomas 
 Belsham, the founder of the Unitarian Society in 1791. 
 His " Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concern- 
 ing the Person of Christ," which was published in 181 1, 
 was at the time, and has ever since been recognized 
 as the ablest defence of modern Unitarian opinions, 
 and as a standard work on the subject. The elder 
 
58 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 brethren, or Arians, as they had been called, shrank from 
 making a confession of faith or forming an organized 
 society. The new Unitarians believed it to be their 
 duty to make a solemn public confession of their belief 
 in the proper unity of God, and of the simple humanity 
 of Jesus Christ. This course placed the two sections 
 " in a position of mutual hostility." " The old spirit," 
 says Dr. Stoughton, " if not exactly the old watchwords, 
 had been freedom of thought, liberty for each to think 
 for himself, no dogmatic creeds, no restraint on religious 
 inquiry ; but now came the renunciation of what many 
 had once counted their glory, and believers in the simple 
 humanity of Jesus formed themselves into a new sect, at 
 war with other parties in Christendom, for they inscribed 
 a negative as well as an affirmative motto on their shield. 
 It was an era in the history of those who rejected the 
 common faith. It marked a new beginning in the 
 annals of anti-Trinitarianism." 
 
 Another of the leaders of this society was Robert 
 Aspland. More even than Mr. Eelsham, he contributed 
 to form what has been since known as the Unitarian 
 body in this country. He acted for some time as 
 secretary to the " British and Foreign Unitarian As- 
 sociation." From about the year 1813, the Unitarians 
 began to be recognized as a separate religious com- 
 munion, and they came into possession of nearly all 
 the chapels and endowments formerly belonging to the 
 General Baptists and the old English Presbyterians. 
 
 II. The distinction between the Unitarian and other 
 religious communions is best described in a negative form. 
 It is more easy to state their denials than their posi- 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 59 
 
 tive belief. It is their boast that they have no standard 
 of faith, or tests of orthodoxy. They are so many 
 individual units without any bond of belief beyond that 
 respecting- the unity of God. But as this belief is as 
 firmly held by all other Christians, as well as by 
 Mohammedans and Jews, it cannot be considered as 
 the special privilege of the Unitarians. They reject the 
 received doctrines respecting the Incarnation of our 
 Lord, and His atonement as a propitiatory satisfaction 
 for sin. They deny the personality of the evil one, and 
 the existence of fallen spirits. They deny the plenary 
 inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. They deny the 
 doctrine of original sin and the innate depravity of 
 human nature. They deny the deity of Christ, but yet 
 believe in His sinlessness ; and, as nothing in Him was 
 particular, but everything was universal to the race, they 
 believe in the possibility of sinlessness in mankind. 
 " That belief in the possibility of human sinlessness," 
 says Mr. Stopford Brooke, " is one that wants restoring 
 to the Christian Church, for it furnishes an ideal of 
 noble victory through the laws of right which is lost to 
 those who believe in the deity of Christ." Unitarians 
 claim to be the upholders of intellectual freedom, of the 
 supremacy of reason, and of the limitation of religion by 
 reason. They protest against creeds of any kind which 
 they consider have a tendency to fetter this freedom, and 
 to bring the mind and conscience of mankind into 
 bondage. But they have not been able wholly to rid 
 themselves of these much-dreaded creeds. " The nega- 
 tive elements of our belief," says Mr. Martineau, " are 
 four only, and very brief" " The positive elements," 
 
6o The Chzirch of £ngland and 
 
 says Dr. Beard, " appear to be eight or nine." But the 
 principle as to whether a creed is necessary cannot be 
 made to depend upon any system of numerical science. 
 It is not a question of positive and negative quantities. 
 Besides, is there any science which the human mind has 
 yet formulated which is free from definitions and postu- 
 lates and axioms Are not these as much of the 
 nature of dogmas as the articles of the Christian 
 creed ? 
 
 It is true that in some of the regions of science the 
 dogmas put forth are at times provisional, and not fixed. 
 Why is this Is it not owing to the conviction that no 
 greater boon can be conferred on any science than to 
 project its ascertained data in a form that the imagina- 
 tion can grasp, and can then revise or improve .'' And if 
 the dogmas of the Christian creed are incapable of 
 being revised, is it not because the facts upon which the 
 dogmas are founded are fixed and unchangeable ? We 
 know no more of the facts which are embodied in the 
 form, commonly called the Apostles' Creed, than the 
 apostles who first promulgated them with the certainty 
 of belief They knew no less than what we know. If 
 the facts which they made known, and which formed the 
 basis of the first Christian creed, were true then, as 
 they believed them to be, they cannot be less true now. 
 This creed, in its condensed form, is the epitome of the 
 faith in which we are baptized. It is the creed of which 
 a Unitarian writer avers that if he were called upon to 
 make a confession of his faith, he would do it in no 
 other words but these, for " this creed was wont to 
 be the sufficient test of Christianity and Church Com- 
 
otJier Religious Communions. 6r 
 
 munion." The preface to the most widely used 
 Unitarian Prayer-book in London states, that " it is pre- 
 pared for a body of Christians who own the importance 
 both of definite individual conviction and of a broad 
 average concurrence among the members of the same 
 Church." 
 
 But the special difficulty which the Unitarian feels to 
 lie in his way at the portals of the Church, arises from 
 the metaphysical speculations, as he would call them, re- 
 specting the Triune Godhead, which are chiefly embodied 
 in the creed or hymn commonly called the Athanasian. 
 Without entering into the controversy which surrounds 
 the retention and periodical recitation of this form of the 
 creed, I will content myself with stating that it was 
 purely in defence of the holy and inviolable unity of the 
 Godhead, for which Unitarians with ourselves plead, that 
 the whole doctrine of the undivided Trinity was formu- 
 lated and amplified by the Church. To say that one is 
 three and three is one may be numerically false, but 
 there are departments in nature where it is true, and in 
 endeavouring to explain the nature of the Godhead we 
 are not bound by the rules of arithmetic. " Consider 
 the case of a chord in musical composition. There is no 
 mixture or confusion of the three notes. The trained 
 ear perceives each separately, so that it can instantly 
 detect if one is out of tune, yet all three notes can form 
 one harmonious sound. What is more, the notes of a 
 triad have a certain correlation which cannot be dis- 
 placed. Invert them as you may, the tonic, the mediant, 
 and the dominant, each retains its characteristic proper- 
 ties." This illustration may fail to be convincing as to 
 
62 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, but it serves to 
 show that there are departments of truth in which a 
 trinity in unity and a unity in trinity is possible. 
 The Unitarians further find a difficulty in conceiving 
 a Fatherhood that has no priority in time over Sonship. 
 The expression in the Nicene Creed, " Light of {de= out of) 
 Light," seems to meet this difficulty. " The light which 
 streams from a lamp may be regarded as its offspring, 
 but the instant the lamp begins to send forth light, the 
 light is, so to speak, born." It is confessedly difficult to 
 attempt such an explanation, or even an illustration, of 
 these mysteries as will fully satisfy the demands of an 
 intellectual inquirer ; but this arises chiefly from the 
 prior difficulty of applying the finite and rational 
 method of interpreting such relative terms as those, for 
 instance, of Fatherhood and Sonship to the infinite 
 relationship of the Godhead. The Church of England 
 owes, undoubtedly, many deep obligations to the Unita- 
 rians for their advocacy of intellectual freedom and 
 moral duties. " Unitarianism has brought into promi- 
 nence a philosophical view of religious action which is 
 a useful corrective in days of much enthusiasm and 
 intense human interest ; but its power is essentially that 
 of an intellectual philosophy, rather than of a living 
 religion capable of stirring and maintaining the devotion 
 of mankind." Let us hear what Mr. Martineau con- 
 siders the Unitarians owe to the Church. " I am con- 
 scious," he says, " that my deepest obligations are to 
 others than to the writers of my own communion. In 
 devotional literature and religious thought I find 
 nothing of ours that does not pale before the writings 
 
other Religions Communions. 63 
 
 of Augustine, Taiiler, and Pascal. And in the poetry of 
 the Church, it is the Latin or the German hymns, 
 or the verses of Charles Wesley or of Keble, that 
 fasten on my memory, and make all else seem poor 
 and cold." 
 
64 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, OR QUAKERS. 
 
 I. The " Society of Friends," or Quakers, who are next 
 to occupy our attention, came into notice from about 
 1647 to 1650. The Puritans who favoured the Pres- 
 byterian form of Church government had at this time 
 obtained the ascendancy in England, both in the Church 
 and in Parliament. The Puritans who favoured the 
 Independent or Congregational form of Church govern- 
 ment succeeded to the Presbyterians. They had bitterly 
 complained of Church tyranny, and had loudly pro- 
 claimed liberty of conscience, only again to deny it to 
 any but themselves. The persecution of the Quakers 
 in England during the time of Cromwell ill became 
 those who had themseh^es been so recently the sufferers. 
 And yet it must in fairness be admitted that some of 
 the early Quakers, both men and women, by their 
 audacity and indecency, certainly provoked the restraint 
 and persecution to which they were subjected. When 
 one woman, in a state of frenzy, rushed in the chapel 
 at Whitehall during the time of divine ser\ace, to testify 
 before the Protector, and when another stood with a 
 drawn sword at the door of the parliament house. 
 
other Religious Communions. 65 
 
 declaring that she was inspired by the Spirit to slay all 
 who were about to enter, we must not be surprised if 
 the liberty of conscience and religion were overlooked 
 in the necessary attempt to restrain the unbridled 
 licence of a reckless lawlessness. The feeling of anta- 
 gonism against these lawless "sectaries," as they were 
 called, was carried across the Atlantic by the " Pilgrim 
 Fathers." At Massachusetts it was enacted by the Inde- 
 pendents that any Quaker landing on the coast should 
 be seized, whipped, and sent back again. If he returned, 
 which did not seem likely, the punishment was death. 
 When Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain refer with 
 exultant pride to their Puritan ancestors, they should 
 remember, it has been said, that " the latter would 
 probably have been burned alive, and the eloquence of 
 the former would have received a serious check by the 
 boring of a hole through his tongue with a hot iron." 
 
 In England the Quakers existed chiefly in the 
 northern counties of Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Durham. 
 Their earliest leaders were Naylor and Fox. To the 
 former of these, it is said, the name "Quaker" owes its 
 origin ; for since of both Isaac and Moses, and even of 
 the earth, it is recorded in Scripture that they trembled 
 and feared and "quaked," it follows, said Naylor, that 
 the saints ought to be " Quakers." They are also said 
 to be connected with the Traskites, a sect of extreme 
 Sabbatarian Puritans who "ate their bread with 
 'quaking' and drank their water with trembling." 
 Another origin for the name is to be found in one of 
 the casual expressions of George Fox, about " fearing 
 and 'quaking' at the Word of the Lord." And yet 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 another origin is found in the history of Fox's com- 
 mittal to prison (1650), by a magistrate at Derby 
 (Gervase Bennett, an Independent Puritan), who called 
 him in jest a " Quaker," in allusion to the exhortations 
 which Fox made to his hearers to " quake," and to the 
 warnings which he addressed to the magistrate. Fox, 
 it is added, had made the crushing retort that there 
 would be " Quakers in England when justices of the 
 ]f)eace had been forgotten." The Quakers began by 
 calling themselves "The People of the Lord," "The 
 Children of Light," but afterwards it became customary 
 for them to use the title of " Friends," derived from the 
 intimate spiritual relationship which existed between 
 our Lord and His disciples, and also from expressions 
 in the Epistles of St. John : " The friends salute thee ; " 
 " Greet the friends by name." 
 
 Naylor, one of the early founders of Quakerism, was 
 an illiterate and fanatical man, from whom Fox subse- 
 quently separated. He was more than once imprisoned 
 and put in the pillory for blasphemy, and he was 
 publicly whipped by the order of a Puritan House of 
 Commons. His followers blasphemously styled him 
 " The Everlasting Son of Righteousness," " The Prince 
 of Peace." But he at length recanted his errors, and 
 was re-admitted to the " sweet society of the Independent 
 Congregation," which had previously disowned him. 
 George Fox was the son of a weaver at Drayton, in 
 Leicestershire. He was apprenticed to a dealer in skins 
 and leather, and by some writers he is said to have 
 followed the trade of a cobbler in his native village. 
 Two years before his apprenticeship would have expired, 
 
other Religious Communions. 67 
 
 he is said to have made for himself clothing out of some 
 of the skins used in his trade, and to have wandered 
 about the country without any visible means of support. 
 His restless condition unfitted him for work, and he 
 became the victim of despondency and fantastic dreams, 
 which he regarded as divine revelations. In the early 
 part of his life he was deeply impressed with the im- 
 portance of spiritual religion, and the inefficiency of 
 mere forms of worship to give life and energy to the 
 soul. He speaks of himself as " knowing pureness and 
 righteousness at the age of eleven years," and there is 
 no reason to doubt his sincerity. Yet, a few years 
 after this admission, his troubled spirit is seeking rest, 
 and finding none. He seeks for comfort and guidance 
 from the parish priests. " One advises him to smoke 
 tobacco and sing Psalms ; another counsels a course of 
 physic and bleeding." He can find no comfort either 
 from the clergy or from those whom he calls the " chapel 
 priests," that is, the Independents and Baptists. They 
 are all " blind guides." " All was dark and under the 
 chain of darkness." At length the divine light within 
 him, the gift of the Spirit, began to shine. His doubts 
 were removed, and he found peace. He felt it to be his 
 duty to make known the principles which had been 
 revealed to him. They were twofold. One was, that 
 it is not a university education, the being " bred at 
 Oxford and Cambridge," which fits a man for the 
 ministry, but that the Spirit enlightens whom He wills. 
 The other was, that he himself has been made the 
 subject of spiritual revelations. His first efforts were 
 directed to " prophesying and testifying " in the parish 
 
68 
 
 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 churches, or " steeple-houses," which were at that time . 
 in the hands of the Presbyterian, and a few of the 
 Independent and Baptist, Puritans. His intrusion and 
 denunciations were as strongly resented by these 
 ministers as if they had been " bigoted Episcopalians," 
 and Fox had been a " right-minded Puritan," clamouring 
 for " liberty of conscience." He delivered his testimony 
 also before magistrates, but, on refusing to uncover his 
 head, he was committed to prison for contempt of court. 
 In 165 1 we find him released from prison, and, in co- 
 operation with Naylor, drawing together a large number 
 cf converts. But Cromwell thought the society to be so 
 dangerous to the State, that he required from Fox, at 
 a personal interview, a written undertaking that he 
 would not molest the government. At the restoration 
 of Charles II., Fox, who was then imprisoned in 
 Lancaster Castle, was released, as were also some two 
 hundred of his followers. The king was willing to grant 
 them toleration, but the insurrection (1661) headed 
 by Thomas Venner, a wine-cooper, and the refusal of 
 the Quakers to take the oath of allegiance, rendered 
 them objects of suspicion to the government, and in 
 1662 an Act was passed prohibiting their assembling 
 for public worship. 
 
 After the death of Fox, the leadership of the Society 
 practically passed into the hands of William Penn, and 
 with this event came a great change. From this time 
 the Quakers became more orderly, and we hear no more 
 of disturbances in churches, or outrages upon public 
 decency. 
 
 Penn was the son of Admiral Sir William Penn, 
 
other Religious Communions. 69 
 
 an intimate friend of the Duke of York, afterwards 
 James II. He went over to the Quakers when he was 
 an undergraduate of Christ Church, Oxford, from which 
 he was expelled, it was said, for refusing to wear his 
 surplice in the cathedral. He also refused to " worship " 
 the king by taking off his hat in the royal presence, and 
 was turned out of doors by his father. 
 
 In 1677 he visited America, where the Quakers, 
 after severe persecutions at the hands of the " Pilgrim 
 Fathers," had established themselves. In 1681 he 
 received from the crown of England, in lieu of the 
 payment of money advanced to his father for the service 
 of the navy, a grant of land on the west of the Delaware, 
 which at that time did not yield a farthing of revenue. 
 Here he founded the town of Philadelphia, which 
 became the head of a State named after himself by a 
 patent from the king, Pennsylvania. 
 
 Pennsylvania alone, it is said, of the American States 
 has never known the horrors of a war with the Indians, 
 and this is mainly owing to the conscientious respect 
 which Penn paid to the rights of the natives, from whom 
 he and his followers purchased instead of seizing the land 
 which they required. He was so far in advance of his age 
 that he established a system of compulsory education in 
 his State. He punished great crimes by solitary confine- 
 ment and hard labour, and restricted capital punishment 
 to cases of murder. After some years of residence in 
 America, he returned to England at the accession of 
 James II. He then became a great favourite with the 
 king, and was regarded as the acknowledged mouthpiece 
 of the " Society of Friends." The Friends petitioned 
 
yo The Church of England and 
 
 the king- for toleration on the ground that he, equally 
 with them, dissented from the Established Church. 
 The king favoured them because he saw a means oi 
 obtaining through them a better position for the 
 Romanists. But these marks of royal favour w^ere 
 turned against the Society, and especially against Penn, 
 after the Revolution. Penn, like Wesley at a later date, 
 was accused of being a Papist and a Jesuit. He was 
 accused of carrj'ing on a treasonable correspondence 
 with the exiled king, and was more than once arrested. 
 He was deprived of his colony in America, but it was 
 restored to him by William, who declared that the 
 charges against him were groundless. Before his death 
 he offered the colony to the crown, accepting in its 
 stead a yearly pension of £AfiOO, which was paid to his 
 lineal descendants until 1884, when it was commuted 
 for the capital sum of £6'j,0QO. From the time of Penn 
 the Society of Friends has been a prosperous com- 
 munity, very successful in trade, and winning respect 
 by their exactness in conversation and their method in 
 the conduct of business. " Your true Quaker," says Dr. 
 Stoughton, " may sometimes provoke us by his eccentric 
 customs, but he is usually a man of public spirit, upright 
 and sincere, claiming men's respect, if they cannot share 
 his convictions." It is recorded of Chalmers that he 
 complained of one thing in Quakerism, and that is, the 
 mode of introducing one person to another. " I could," 
 he said, " have recognized in ' Mrs. Opie ' a lady w^hose 
 writings I had greatly esteemed, but I could not feel the 
 charm of any such reminiscences when 'Joseph John' 
 (Gurney) bade me conduct ' Amelia ' (Opie) into the 
 
other Religious Communions. 71 
 
 dining-room." The writer of the " Present State of 
 England, 1702," says of them, "They practised formerly 
 abstinence and self-denial, but now of late none are 
 prouder or more luxurious than the generality of them. 
 They are extremely nice in the choice of tailors, semp 
 stresses, and laundresses. They are as curious in their 
 meals, as cheerful in their drinks, and as much in the 
 enjoyment of life as others." 
 
 " Properly to understand Quakerism," says Dr. 
 Stoughton, " critics must study the characters of 
 Quakers." And a society is not to be despised which 
 could produce men and women of such varied abilities, 
 and with so much conscientious sincerity of character. 
 William Penn, of whom I have already spoken, was the 
 author of the well-known and valued treatise, " No 
 Cross, no Crown." Robert Barclay was the author of 
 the celebrated "Apology for the Quakers," which con- 
 sists of fifteen chapters, dealing with fifteen propositions 
 which set forth "the chief principles of the Christian 
 religion as professed by the people called Quakers." 
 They were written first in Latin, and afterwards in 
 English, in 1678. Stephen Grellet, the son of a French 
 noble, who was the intimate friend and counsellor of 
 Louis XVI., became a Quaker in America in conse- 
 quence of reading Penn's celebrated work, and subse- 
 quently devoted himself, both in Europe and America, 
 to the cause he had espoused. His field of labour was 
 in every circle. He attended meetings of the nobility ; 
 he interviewed the debtors and prisoners in Newgate, 
 and gathered in thieves, pick-pockets, and abandoned 
 women to the Friends' Meeting-house in St. Martin's 
 
72 The Church of England and 
 
 Lane. William Forster, "a man of large intelligence 
 and not without literary taste," took an active share 
 with Grellet in his efforts to reclaim the criminal classes 
 in the metropolis. He also lent invaluable aid to those 
 who sought to mitigate the terrible sufferings of the 
 Irish peasantry during the potato famine. He sup- 
 ported Clarkson, Wilberforce, and the other leaders in 
 the crusade against the horrors of the slave-trade. He 
 assisted the efforts of those who were engaged in pro- 
 moting the spiritual welfare of the actors and actresses 
 in the theatres of London. 
 
 Elizabeth Fry {jiee Gurney), descended from a race 
 of strict Quakers settled at Norwich, after her mar- 
 riage came to London, and was accepted, according to 
 the Society's rules, as a preacher. She is known and 
 honoured for her " persevering exertions for the moral 
 and spiritual reformation, and the more humane treat- 
 ment, of female prisoners." "When she visited New- 
 gate," says Dr. Stoughton, "she found herself surrounded 
 by hundreds of her sex, sunk in the depths of crime 
 and degradation. The best key to unlock the confidence 
 and the affection of some of them she found to be an 
 appeal to their motherly instincts." 
 
 Joseph Lancaster, the son of a soldier, devoted 
 himself to the cause of education. He adopted the 
 monitorial system, which had been recommended by 
 Dr. Bell, and which still survives in our present code of 
 education in elementary schools. On this system some 
 of the more intelligent elder children are occasionally 
 employed to instruct the younger ones. Lancaster and 
 his friends in the Society established, in 1808, the British 
 
other Religioiis Communions. 
 
 and Foreign School Society, which was to do for the 
 dissenting bodies what the National Society was founded 
 to do for the support of the elementary schools attached 
 to the Church of England. 
 
 The Society of Friends has also contributed two 
 men whose names are justly held in honour in the 
 scientific world— John Dalton, the expounder of the 
 atomic theory ; and William Allen, the discoverer of 
 the chemical composition of the diamond. They have 
 had also a painter in Benjamin West, and a novelist in 
 Mrs. Opie. 
 
 II. The Friends have not been without the experience 
 of the throes of secession, although they have not been 
 fettered with any authorized formularies, such as Articles 
 of Religion, or Confessions of Faith, for Barclay's fifteen 
 propositions are regarded merely as the opinion of an 
 individual Friend. 
 
 One secession took place in consequence of the 
 " Beacon controversy," which involved three important 
 points — -(l) immediate revelation ; (2) perceptible guid- 
 ance ; (3) universal saving and spiritual light. With 
 respect to (i), the Friends hold that the Spirit im- 
 mediately unfolds to the understanding of believers 
 the great principles contained in the Scriptures, applying 
 them to the various duties of life. The seceders re- 
 garded this view as weakening the authority of the 
 inspired Word, which they held to be the sole standard 
 of faith and obedience. (2) The Friends maintained 
 that when neither man nor the Scriptures are near to 
 inform us, the Spirit immediately and perceptibly informs 
 our thoughts, and gives us true directions what to do, 
 
74 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 and what to leave undone. The seceders questioned 
 whether the grace by which a Christian is guided be per- 
 ceptible, and, if perceptible, whether it is capable of being 
 distinguished from the unassisted operation of our own 
 thoughts. (3) The doctrine held by the Friends on the 
 universal saving and spiritual light is, that, independently 
 of any outward information, every individual human 
 being may in himself come to the knowledge of the 
 Saviour. The seceders objected to this doctrine on the 
 ground that it seemed to weaken the belief in the pro- 
 mised guidance of the Holy Spirit, and in the revelation 
 of the written Word. 
 
 Another party in 1695 seceded from the Society, 
 under the leadership of George Keith, and were called 
 after his name, but they adopted for themselves the 
 designation of " Christian Quakers or Friends." Keith 
 was one of the most refined and learned of the Society. 
 Being opposed to the method introduced by some 
 of the Friends in America, of allegorizing the Gospels 
 to such an extent as to obscure the historical facts 
 of our Lord's human life, he was accused, upon appa- 
 rently insufficient evidence, of holding erroneous views 
 respecting the human nature of Christ, and was ex- 
 pelled from the Society by Penn. His followers were 
 at first numerous, but after Keith's return to England, 
 they gradually dwindled into a small sect, and became 
 reabsorbed into the original Society. Keith opened a 
 chapel in London, where he restored the outward signs 
 of the Sacraments, but retained many of the peculiarities 
 of the Quakers. His followers were called " Quaker Bap- 
 tists." In 1700 Keith conformed to the Church, and was 
 
other Religious Communions. 75 
 
 ordained as a missionary of the Society for the Propaga- 
 tion of the Gospel, for work in America, to gather in 
 Quakers to the Church. After two years he returned 
 to England, and became rector of Edburton, in Sussex. 
 Of his former followers, he himself, it is said, received 
 upwards of two hundred into the Church by baptism ; 
 others became either First-day or Seventh-day Baptists, 
 and a few returned to the Quakers. 
 
 In the early part of this century (1827), a small 
 party of Friends named Hicksites, after their leader 
 Elias Hicks, separated from the original Society. They 
 desired to return to what they supposed to be the 
 original tenets of Fox, respecting " the inward light " 
 as superior in authority to the Scriptures. But they 
 reduced the inward light to man's natural reason or 
 conscience, and they held that by following its dictates 
 alone mankind will attain to eternal salvation. They 
 repudiated the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the 
 Atonement, and, although they are said to be the most 
 numerous body in America, they are considered by the 
 older Quakers, both there and in England, to have 
 departed from the fundamental truths of the Christian 
 religion. The Hicksite theory, in fact, presents Quaker- 
 ism as " Christianity shrouded in mystical Deism and 
 struggling with it like a lamp in a vapoury atmosphere," 
 and the Society has always protested against all forms 
 of bare Deism. 
 
 The Society has for some years been declining in 
 numbers. As early as 1836, Mr. Forster had noticed 
 that " many of our meetings are very small, and they 
 may be still smaller." In that year thirty resignations 
 
76 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 of membership were sent in to a monthly meeting. In 
 some places the secessions from the Friends have been 
 so numerous that the Society has become extinct. In 
 1873 a Conference was held in London, to deliberate on 
 the condition of the Society, and to inquire into the 
 causes which retard the increase of its members. The 
 children of the older Quakers, as they grew up, ceased 
 to take an interest in silent meetings, and longed for 
 a form of worship which would appeal to their imagina- 
 tions and enlist their active sympathies. So those who 
 cease to be members, and those who decline to become 
 members of the Society, usually turn towards the Church 
 of England. In 1846 Caroline Fox, the remarkable 
 daughter of an earnest FViend, wrote in her journal, " I 
 have assumed a name to-day for my religious principles, 
 ' Quaker Catholicism.' " The younger generation, at 
 least, has discovered that in the doctrine and ritual of 
 the Church of England they have all that the teaching 
 and principles of their own Society affirms, and much 
 more besides of which, in its denials, it Avrongfully de- 
 prives them. " Those who have left the Society in large 
 numbers are the thoughtful, the grave, the cultivated, 
 and the conscientious. They are a fatal loss to the 
 Society, •\\ hich they are constrained by conviction to leave. 
 They are a valued gain to the Church of England." 
 
 III. I. I will now proceed to state some of the doc- 
 trines peculiar to the Friends. That of the "inward 
 light " is, in fact, nothing else, when estimated " according 
 to the proportion of the faith," than, under its scriptural 
 name, " the Power that worketh in us," or, under its form 
 in the Creed, " the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of 
 
other Religious Communions. 77 
 
 life." It has been thought that this leading principle 
 in the unbalanced teaching of George Fox, and the more 
 systematic and refined teaching of Barclay and Penn, 
 virtually set aside the authority of the Scriptures. But 
 it was not so. The doctrine, as set forth by the Friends, 
 was at the time a strong protest against the hardness 
 of Calvinism and the narrowness of Puritanism. " It is 
 not easy," says Mr. Maurice, " to imagine two sets of 
 men more contrasted in their opinions and habits than 
 the members of this sect and those of the old Scotch 
 Calvinists." " The Bible, and the Bible only, the religion 
 of Protestants." Such was the well-worn saying attri- 
 buted to Chillingworth, in his book on " The Religion of 
 Protestants, a Safe Way of Salvation." Chillingworth 
 was always unsettled in his religious opinions. From 
 being a priest of the English Church, and a Fellow of 
 Trinity College, Oxford, he became a Romanist, under 
 the influence of the Jesuit Fisher ; but, having been per- 
 suaded by his godfather, Archbishop Laud, to examine 
 the principles of the two Communions, returned to the 
 Church of England. Subsequently his opinions were 
 inclined towards Arianism, and at the time he wrote 
 that celebrated aphorism respecting the Bible he could 
 not bring himself to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, be- 
 cause he considered the doctrine of Arius — namely, that 
 the Son was like (Jionioi-ousion), but not of ''one sub- 
 .stance" {hoino-otision) "with the Father" — to be either 
 the truth, or at least not a heresy. But a few years 
 after this he discovered that he could sign these Articles, 
 since they necessarily form a preliminary act to the 
 institution to a benefice. "Once," says Fox in his 
 
78 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 journal, " there came a chapel priest, a Baptist, to 
 oppose me, but the Lord confounded him. Then he 
 out with his Bible and said it was the Word of God, 
 I told him that it was the words of God, but not God 
 the Word." Fox meant by this a great deal more than 
 a poor play on terms of speech. " Then he said he 
 would prove it to be a god ; and so he toiled himself 
 afresh till he perspired again." The protest of the 
 Friends was against that mechanical use of the Scrip- 
 tures which converts them merely into an armoury of 
 texts from which to draw forth the weapons of defence 
 or offence in theological warfare. Conscience, which 
 is truly one of "the oracles of God," was stifled and 
 crushed, because it was not recognized that the Holy 
 Spirit speaks to each one through this channel, no less, 
 although with a different purpose and over a wider area, 
 than He spoke through " holy men of old," whose 
 writings have been cherished and preserved. If in 
 broken accents and uncultured speech, and in an untheo- 
 logical form, Fox and the earlier Friends heralded forth 
 their doctrine of the " inward light," it was an effort, 
 " a voice crying in the wilderness," to recall Christians 
 to the acknowledgment of all the fulness of truth that 
 is contained in the third section of the Nicene Creed — 
 belief in "the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life." 
 
 2. But the Friends have further protested against 
 Calvinistic theories of election and reprobation. They 
 who hold these theories teach that the greater part of 
 mankind, do what they will, are predestined to eternal 
 punishment (reprobation), and that a certain number 
 (or, as might be suggested, an uncertain number) are 
 
other Religious Communions. 79 
 
 elected for heaven. Fox says in his journal that he was 
 led to open to the people the falseness and folly of the 
 doctrine of their "priests" (the Puritan incumbents) and 
 " professors " (the Puritan separatists). " Was not 
 Christ," he says, " a Propitiation for the sins of the whole 
 world .'' " Where is this truth, it may be asked, taught 
 with more singular persistence than in the office of the 
 Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer, with 
 which, it seems likely, Fox was as unacquainted as 
 many Churchmen of our day ? 
 
 3. To the Friends also is due our acknowledgment 
 of their maintenance of the necessity of personal holi- 
 ness. This doctrine, no less than the others upon which 
 they have laid so much stress, has ever been the doc- 
 trine of the Church, which it has inherited from its 
 Divine Founder, and from the recorded teaching of His 
 apostles. But it seems as if this article of the Christian 
 creed, which is included in our belief in " the Commu- 
 nion of Saints," had nearly passed out of sight in 
 an age in which religion had become so formal and 
 mechanical. " The Friends imbibed a notion, which 
 they have in great measure since retained as one of 
 their grounds of prejudice, that the outward ordinances 
 are depended upon in the Church as siibstitictes for 
 Christian virtue and grace and holiness of life." 
 
 4. There are other questions in which the Friends 
 have always taken a great interest, and maintained a 
 consistent course of action. They have been always 
 zealous in advocating, and liberal in supporting, every 
 effort which has been made for the suppression of the 
 slave-trade. They have been eager advocates for the 
 
8o The Church of England and 
 
 abolition of war, and they base their advocacy on 
 the inference which they draw from the terms of the 
 commandment, " Thou shalt not kill," and on the saying 
 of our Lord, " Love your enemies." There is another 
 commandment given by our Lord from the Mount of 
 Beatitudes, " Swear not at all," which they interpret as 
 rendering unlawful all kinds of oaths, even those which 
 are administered in the civil courts in the interests of 
 justice. Enactments have been passed in the English 
 Parliament to meet these objections on their part, and 
 the affirmation of a Quaker is now accepted instead of 
 the customary form of oath. The abolition of the oath 
 would not render the penalty for wilfully making a 
 false affirmation one whit the less severe, and it would 
 certainly close the door against much unseemly irre- 
 verence in the usual mode of administering the oath. 
 
 5. The points on which the Friends essentially differ 
 from the doctrine and practice of the Church centre 
 round the Sacraments ordained by Christ, and the ap- 
 pointment of an order given to administer them. " To 
 the Friends the sacraments are but casual ordinances 
 long since superseded." " It is strange that where the 
 Church would teach a literal meaning in the words of 
 Holy Scripture the Friends maintain a figurative inter- 
 pretation, and where the interpretation is plainly figura- 
 tive they as plainly uphold the literak" " Outward 
 baptism," they say, " that is, the baptism by water, 
 is not an ordinance of Christ, or, at least, not to be 
 observed as of perpetual or universal obligation. Under 
 the Christian dispensation there is one, and only one 
 baptism, and that is an inward baptism ' with the Holy 
 
other Religious Communions. 8i 
 
 Ghost and with fire.' This is the baptism of the Spirit 
 by which conversion of heart is known, and the re- 
 pentant sinner is brought through Hving faith in Christ 
 into His adopted family." Of the other Sacrament of 
 the Gospel they say, " The communion of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ is inward and spiritual, of which the 
 breaking of bread with His disciples was a figure, but 
 is not of perpetual obligation." They hold that "the 
 true Supper of the Lord consisted only in the spiritual 
 eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood." 
 
 We see in these one-sided views the consequences 
 of a disproportioned statement of the doctrine of the 
 " inward light." In effect it leads to the abandonment 
 of all the outward " means of grace." Yet the apostles, 
 as simple men, must have taken the command of our 
 Lord in its simple and natural sense. "Go ye, baptize." 
 They would surely have been greatly surprised and 
 confounded if He had added, "but not with water." 
 Certainly it would have been difficult for St. John to 
 have recorded our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus 
 if this limitation had been imposed. The apostles knew 
 that baptism with water was administered in certain 
 cases as a symbol of purification in the Jewish Church. 
 Those in the apostolic college who had been His dis- 
 ciples had seen John baptize with water. The outward 
 sign was familiar to them. It only remained that they 
 should be assured of the accompanying inward grace, 
 the promise of the Holy Spirit. So, again, as having 
 been accustomed to the offering of the daily memorial 
 sacrifice {anamnesis) on the altar in the temple, they 
 would at once understand that our Lord was "fulfilling 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 all righteousness," gathering into His institution of the 
 Holy Eucharist all the ancient types and the sacrifices 
 under the Law, when He said, " This do ye in remem- 
 brance {anamnesis) of Me." Here were two well-known 
 sacrificial terms. " Offer ye this with a view to its 
 being My memorial." And having perfectly understood 
 our Lord's commands, and the reason for them, the 
 apostles have handed over to the Church the tradition 
 of their perpetual obligation. At the same time, to 
 state the whole truth, it has been from the first admitted 
 that to place limits to the mercy and grace of God in 
 Christ does not belong to human hands. There have 
 been cases where a baptism by fire, a martyrdom for 
 Christ, has been held to be a passport of admission 
 into the kingdom of heaven. There have been cases 
 where the saying of St. Augustine could alone find its 
 application — " Believe, and thou hast eaten." " Spiritual 
 communion " is an act of faith and worship in which 
 the faithful in the Church are happily now well versed ; 
 but it does not involve on their part any neglect or 
 disparagement of the outward form of the divinely 
 appointed " means of grace." In fact, apart from this, 
 it would have to them neither meaning nor effect. 
 
 As to the appointed orders of a ministry, the 
 Friends hold that "whoever is inwardly called to ex- 
 ercise the ministerial functions is sufficiently qualified 
 for that post." But no one is at liberty to become a 
 " Public Friend," that is, an acknowledged preacher 
 in the Society in contradistinction from a " Plain 
 Friend," until his case has been submitted to a 
 monthly meeting, and sanction is given to his ministiy. 
 
other Religious Communions, 83 
 
 After all, this is no new doctrine or practice. The 
 " inward call " and the " outward sanction " are both 
 amply recognized in the ordinal of the Church. The 
 first question which is asked of the candidate for ad- 
 mission to either of the three orders of the ministry 
 is, whether he believes himself to have been " inwardly 
 called by the Holy Spirit " to that special office, and 
 the outward sanction is given, according to primitive 
 practice, in the face of the Church or congregation, by 
 the laying on of the hands of the bishop, and, in the 
 case of ordination to the priesthood, of the hands of 
 the assistant priests as well, who are present, in con- 
 formity with the injunction of St. Paul to Timothy. 
 As the Friends object to the existence of an order of 
 ministers, they naturally object to being obliged to 
 contribute in any way towards their maintenance. They 
 object to the payment of tithes, as they have objected 
 to the payment of a church-rate. The Quaker's kettle, 
 put up to auction in distraint for tithe or church-rate, 
 has often been used as a text louder than sounding 
 brass or tinkling cymbal from which to preach a crusade 
 against all forms of ecclesiastical tyranny. But the 
 Friends object as strongly to all kinds of warfare, yet 
 they contribute to the imperial taxation without the 
 necessity for a distraint upon their goods. They are 
 credited with being a shrewd race in matters of money 
 and business. They probably know full well that it 
 would be impossible to evoke any popular sentiment 
 in favour of their outraged conscience by resistance to 
 this impost. These amiable peculiarities, however, do 
 not prevent the Friends from recognizing and assisting 
 
84 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 all the good works which are being carried on outside 
 their own communion. And we of the Church of Eng- 
 land can speak with an appreciative sense of gratitude 
 of the unsolicited and noble gift of a permanent resi- 
 dence lately made to the recently created see of New- 
 castle by a member of the Society of Friends (Sir 
 Joseph Pease, Bart, M.P.). 
 
other Religious Communions. 8 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE METHODISTS. 
 
 The eighteenth century is remarkable for the develop- 
 ment in England of two religious movements which took, 
 in the end, wholly divergent courses. There was (i) 
 the growth and gradual diffusion through all religious 
 thought of the supremacy of reason, which led on to Deism 
 and Unitarianism ; and there was (2) the great enkindling 
 of the religious consciousness of the people, which 
 assumed the form of Methodism. When Methodism 
 became the religion of a communion existing outside of 
 the Church of England, the form which it took within 
 the pale of the Church was known as Evangelicalism. 
 With some trifling exceptions, the whole of the religious 
 literature of the early part of the eighteenth century 
 was drawn into the endeavour " to prove the truth of 
 Christianity." And when the people in any age are 
 found to be constantly occupied in " proving " their creed, 
 it is a manifest token that they have ceased to have any 
 belief in it for the practical purposes of life. The ortho- 
 dox clergy of that day spent much of their time, as it 
 seemed to be demanded of them, in manufacturing 
 " evidence " as an ingenious exercise. It might readily be 
 
86 The Church of England and 
 
 supposed, therefore, that their pubHc teaching would 
 soon crystallize into a consistent repetition of statements 
 which, however true and safe, had no power to stimulate 
 those centres of religious force which, explain it how we 
 may, exist in every human soul, and have an undoubted 
 share in moulding the lives and characters of mankind. 
 The incessant efforts of the orthodox clergy to " prove 
 the truth " of the religion which it was their business 
 to preach, left but little room for the exercise of the 
 practical offices of religion ; accordingly the clergy of 
 that day have been described by Bishop Burnet as " the 
 most remiss in their labours in private, and the least 
 severe in their lives." Of the gentry of his time the 
 bishop says, " They are, for the most part, the worst in- 
 structed and the least knowing of their rank." Of the 
 middle and lower classes he says, " It is not to be con- 
 ceived how ignorant they are in the matters of religion." 
 And of the bishops, that " their pomp of living and the 
 keeping high tables let in much promiscuous company, 
 and much vain discourse." 
 
 I. It was about this period that a revival of spiritual 
 life within the Church of England began at Oxford. 
 Charles Wesley, the poet of Methodism, formed in 1729 
 a small society of undergraduates, of whom Whitefield 
 was one, who agreed to assemble on Sunday evenings 
 for prayer and the study of the New Testament in Greek. 
 They also bound themselves to visit the prisoners in the 
 castle and the poor in the city on Wednesday and 
 Friday in each week, to attend the Holy Eucharist at 
 St. Mary's Church every Sunday and holy day, and to 
 make a 7nethodical arrangement of their time. It is said 
 
other Religious Communions. 87 
 
 that the name " Methodist " owes its origin to this latter 
 regulation, for " method " was a household word at 
 Epworth Rectory, where John and Charles Wesley were 
 born, and thus that the true founder of Methodism was 
 not, as Bishop Warburton said, William Law, the author 
 of the " Serious Call," a nonjuror and a High Church- 
 man, but the mother of the Wesleys. Others have 
 thought that the name was given to the members of the 
 little society in ridicule by their fellow-students at Ox- 
 ford. John Wesley, the elder brother, had been assisting 
 his father as curate at Epworth, and when, after two 
 years' absence, he returned to Oxford to reside on his 
 Fellowship at Lincoln College, he found the society, of 
 which, by reason of his age, his character, and his posi- 
 tion he became the leader, already formed. In 1735, 
 on the death of his father, he was offered the living of 
 Epworth, which he refused ; and accepted, from the Society 
 for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, the 
 offer of a post as missionary in Georgia, one of the North 
 American colonies, founded by General Oglethorpe as a 
 refuge for debtors after their liberation from imprison- 
 ment in England. The purpose of this mission, in which 
 he had the assistance of his brother Charles, was twofold ; 
 (i) that of ministering to the settlers there, and (2) that 
 of evangelizing the neighbouring tribes of Red Indians. 
 But his attempt to revive the ritual and discipline of the 
 Church among the lately demoralized denizens of the 
 Fleet and the Marshalsea prisons was unsuccessful, and 
 his mission to convert the Red Indians was a failure. 
 His failure in the colony is thought to have been owing 
 chiefly to his imperious temper, his indiscretion, and a 
 
88 The Church of England and 
 
 not very creditable lawsuit in which he was involved, by 
 his refusal to administer the Holy Communion to a lady 
 to whom he had been betrothed. 
 
 On his voyage out to Georgia, and during his 
 residence there, he had become very intimate with the 
 Moravians, who for some time afterwards exercised 
 a strong influence on his religious opinions. " I did 
 not find," he said, " a door open for preaching to the 
 Red Indians, but God hath opened to me a door 
 into the whole Moravian Church." On his return to 
 England he became a regular member of the Mo- 
 ravian Society in London. It was w'hile he was 
 attending the meetings of the society that he made 
 the acquaintance of Peter Bohler, a Moravian min- 
 ister. From him he learnt the two peculiar tenets 
 of Methodism ; (i) instantaneous or sudden conversion, 
 and (2) personal and absolute assurance of forgiveness. 
 He recounts in his journal, with some minuteness of 
 detail, the process of his own conversion on May 24, 
 1738, at a quarter before nine in the evening. About 
 three weeks after this event the two brothers, John and 
 Charles Wesley, went on a visit to Hernhutt (" the Watch 
 of the Lord "), in Saxony, where Christian David, a 
 Moravian and formerly a Roman Catholic, with two of 
 his friends, had established a home for the brethren. 
 Here they made the acquaintance of Count Zinzendorf, 
 the patron of the Moravians, and the godson of Spener 
 the founder of the Pietists, or Methodists, of Germany. 
 They were anxious to become more familiar with the 
 tenets and practical system of the Moravians, originally 
 a Lutheran community, but subsequently separated 
 
other Religious Communions. 89 
 
 under an episcopate, so-called, of its own creation. But 
 the familiarity which they sought and obtained seems to 
 have had much the same effect upon the Wesleys as is 
 attributed to it in the common proverb. John Wesley 
 declared that " the Moravians were the most plausible, 
 and therefore the most dangerous, of all the Anti- 
 nomians " (persons " who profess to be Christians, but 
 reject the moral law on some ground of perverted Chris- 
 tian principle "). He repudiated their doctrine that 
 sacraments and other "means of grace" were of no 
 account, and he finally withdrew himself from their 
 society. " This association had tended greatly to weaken 
 Wesley's hold upon the system of the Church, and 
 although to the latest day of his life he earnestly repu- 
 diated the idea of separating from it, yet his movement 
 from that date distinctly and progressively tended to- 
 wards the formation of a religious community inde- 
 pendent of the Church." 
 
 About this time George Whitcfield was attracting 
 large congregations by the earnestness of his preaching. 
 He had been a member of the society founded by the 
 Wesleys at Oxford. After his ordination as deacon he 
 had followed them to Georgia, where he laboured with 
 great success, and he had now returned to England to 
 take priest's orders. Whitefield persuaded his friend John 
 Wesley to take up the work which he had so successfully 
 begun, but was prohibited by the chancellor of the diocese 
 from continuing, among the colliers of Kingswood, near 
 Bristol, at that time the " Black Country " of England, 
 inhabited by men and women sunk in the most brutal 
 ignorance and vice, and entire strangers to religion. 
 
90 The Church of England and 
 
 In his intercourse with the Moravians Wesley 
 had come under the influence of German mysticism. 
 " Its doctrine of regeneration into God's kingdom by an 
 interior convulsion of the mind has left its mark upon 
 Wesleyan teaching to this day." In his work at Kings- 
 wood he was confronted with that peculiar form of 
 fanaticism with which the " Convulsionists " of France 
 are associated. It was an epidemic of religious hysteria — 
 " that proteiform disorder of the nervous system in which 
 the fond imaginations, the vain superstitions, and the 
 inexplicable follies of all ages, have originated or been 
 reflected." At every meeting and after every sermon 
 strong men were smitten to the ground, while women fell 
 down in convulsions and cried out for mercy. Wesley, 
 who was always inclined to see miraculous interpositions 
 in very trifling circumstances, thought at one time " it 
 was Satan tearing them as they were coming to Christ," 
 and at another that " Satan mimicked this part of the 
 work of God in order to discredit the whole." 
 
 11. (l) The first step which Wesley took in the direc- 
 tion of an eventual separation by his followers from the 
 discipline of the Church of England, was that of setting 
 up " preaching-houses," but without the sanction of the 
 parish priest or the licence of the bishop. In May, 
 1/39) the foundation-stone of the first " preaching-house," 
 called the " New Room," was laid in the Horse Fair at 
 Bristol ; and in November of the same year an old 
 cannon foundry at Moorfields, in London, was fitted up 
 and opened as "The Foundry." This was the head- 
 quarters of the confraternity. From this time preaching- 
 houses began very rapidly to increase in numbers, and 
 
other Religious Communions. 91 
 
 the Methodists were organized into a " society," which 
 received from John Wesley the name of the " United 
 Society." The name seems to have been taken from 
 the societies of the Moravians {Unitas Fratrmn — United 
 Society of Brethren), but this "germinal principle of 
 Methodism " has been more truly traced to the influence 
 of the early society, of which John Wesley became the 
 leader, at Oxford. The original purpose for which 
 these preaching-houses were built, was that Wesley and 
 his coadjutors who were in Holy Orders might preach 
 in them if refused admission to the parish church, and 
 also that they might not be compelled to keep with 
 strict conformity to the use of the Book of Common 
 Prayer, as they must have done in consecrated buildings. 
 (2) But when his clerical assistants became fewer, a 
 proi^osal for permission to laymen to officiate was forced 
 upon Wesley. He at first disapproved of the innova- 
 tion, and came up in haste from Bristol to London to 
 put a stop to it. But the feminine influence of his 
 mother, and of the well-intentioned but weak-minded 
 Countess of Huntingdon, induced him to yield to the 
 proposal, and he soothed his conscientious scruples with 
 the sanctity of a text: "It is the Lord; let Him do 
 what seemeth to Him good." This was the second step 
 in the organization of the Methodists as a sect. (3) 
 The " preaching-houses " soon developed into " chapels," 
 or " churches," as they are now called, and the lay 
 preachers in these chapels received permission from 
 Wesley to use the Book of Common Prayer. This was 
 the third step in the same direction. As to this per- 
 mission it may be said, if the lay preachers used, with 
 
c)2 The Church of England and 
 
 one or two excepted parts, the Order for Morning and 
 Evening Prayer, including the psalms and lessons, no 
 objection could be raised, inasmuch as these services 
 were condensed from more ancient forms used by lay- 
 men in the monasteries. But they clamoured to be 
 allowed also to use the form for the administration of 
 the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Communion, 
 and so to assume to themselves the right to exercise all 
 the spiritual powers which are inherent in the holy 
 order of the priesthood. The last recorded words of 
 John Wesley show how strongly he resisted this attempt 
 to make the Methodist Society into a sect independent 
 of and separated from the Church. (4) Another step 
 which led towards the final separation of Wesley's 
 society from the communion of the Church has affected 
 the Methodists in America rather than in England. It 
 is nothing less than Wesley's pretended consecration of 
 Dr. Coke and l\Ir. Asbury as bishops, and other persons 
 as priests, for his missions in North America. Wesley 
 endeavoured to veil his schismatic act under the ex- 
 planation that he intended them to be merely " super- 
 intendents " and "elders," and that he had been 
 convinced by Lord King's account of the primitive 
 Church that " bishops and presbyters are the same order, 
 and have the same right to ordain." Wesley w-as un- 
 doubtedly, as Alexander Knox has said, " the dupe of 
 his own weakness and of other men's arts." But the 
 persons whom he pretended to ordain, though some 
 doubted, claimed to themselves the title to the higher 
 offices and the powers which appertain to them, and 
 they became the originators of what is known as the 
 
other Relioious Communions. 
 
 93 
 
 " Methodist Episcopal Church " in the United States of 
 America, from which, however, there have been several 
 large secessions of members on the questions of the so- 
 called episcopacy, and of slavery and temperance. 
 
 III. The first VVesleyan Conference met in 1744. 
 It consisted of five Methodist clergy of the Church of 
 England, and one lay preacher, who assembled in Lon- 
 don for what we should now call a "retreat," or a "quiet 
 day." From this time conferences were held every year 
 in London, Bristol, or Leeds. In 1784 Wesley drew up 
 a " Deed of Declaration," which was formerly enrolled 
 in Chancery, and VVesleyan Methodism became an 
 " established " religious institution. This poll-deed en- 
 trusted the Conference with the use of all the property 
 belonging to the society, which even then was of a con- 
 siderable amount, and virtually identified Methodism 
 with the " legal hundred " lay preachers, who are 
 empowered to settle by a majority of votes all questions 
 that may arise in the society. 
 
 Wesley died in 1 79 1, at the age of eighty-eight, and 
 within two months of his death the United Society 
 which he had established was deeply divided on the 
 questions (l) of the administration of the sacraments in 
 the "chapels," and (2) of the admission of those whom, 
 in the superiority of their pretensions, the lay preachers 
 called " laymen," into the Conference, or governing body 
 of the society. At a meeting of the Conference held at 
 Manchester in 1791, the members decided to follow 
 strictly the plan which Mr. Wesley left at his death. 
 At other subsequent Conferences it was affirmed that 
 the determination of the society was to remain in 
 
94 
 
 TJu Church of England and 
 
 connection with the Church of England ; to forbid 
 the administration of the Holy Communion by the 
 preachers in any part of the Connexion, except when 
 the society is unanimous and its union and concord 
 cannot be preserved without it, and then it was to be 
 administered in tJie evening only, and according to the 
 form in the Prayer-book ; to lay aside all ecclesiastical 
 titles, such as ^"Reverend" etc., with gown and bands 
 in preaching ; and to forbid all preaching during the 
 times of divdne ser\dce in the parish church. But these 
 restrictions were gradually relaxed, on the plea that if 
 they were retained the society' would be broken up. 
 Up to the year 1836 the lay preachers were " ordained " 
 by " setting apart and prayer." From that time the 
 " imposition (or laying on) of hands " was adopted in 
 order to give the solemn semblance of apostolic pre- 
 cedent to a simple function. Thus the steps which, one 
 by one, Wesley had taken during his Ufetime, however 
 unwillingly or unwittingly, in the creation of a sect, 
 rapidly increased after his death, and the Wesleyan 
 Methodists are now the largest body of " separatists " 
 from the Church of England. 
 
 IV. But they have also, on the other hand, suffered 
 the penalty, if sectarianism be considered b)- them as an 
 evil, of separation from among themselves. At an earl}?^ 
 date there had been a dispute between Wesley and 
 Whitefield, similar to that which had raged on the Con- 
 tinent and in England, in the days of the Puritans, 
 between the followers of Arminius and Calvin, respecting 
 the doctrines of predestination and the eternal decrees 
 of God. They preached and they printed sermons the 
 
other Religious Communions. 95 
 
 one against the other. So long as the waves of the wide 
 Atlantic Ocean rolled between them, this was not a very- 
 serious matter. But as soon as Whitefield returned to 
 England the quarrel became more serious, for he took 
 up his parable on behalf of Calvinism close by the 
 Foundry, the head-quarters of Methodism, at Moor- 
 fields. He was once permitted to preach in Wesley's 
 chapel, and, with singular want of Christian charity, he 
 took the opportunity of attacking the tenets of Arminius, 
 which were held and taught there in some form by 
 Wesley. On being refused permission on another occa- 
 sion to preach, Whitefield took consolation in comparing 
 himself with Calvin turned out of Geneva. "Wesley 
 hated Calvinism, and declared he would rather be a 
 Turk, a Deist, or even an Atheist." Whitefield became 
 for a time the leader of the Calvinistic Methodists, who 
 dissented from the teaching of Wesley ; but the practical 
 leadership drifted into the hands of the Countess of 
 Huntingdon, who gave her name and her fortune to this 
 sect, which she established, half within and half without 
 the Church of England. The countess built what she 
 called " Free Churches " in different places for the 
 advocacy of Calvinism, and the use of the services of 
 the Church of England. As the widow of an earl, she 
 claimed the right to appoint chaplains to serve her 
 churches, whom she bribed by the offer of a black silk 
 scarf, the badge of a nobleman's chaplain, to be worn 
 over the gown. When such men as Romaine, and Venn, 
 and Toplady, and others found that "my lady" was 
 inclined to set up a dissenting communion under her 
 own headship they left her service, and became the 
 
96 The Church of England and 
 
 leaders of the so-called " Evangelical " or " Low Church " 
 party in the Church of England. The countess was 
 strongly opposed to Wesley, and the imperious temper 
 of each gained for them respectively the sobriquet of 
 " Pope John " and " Pope Joan." 
 
 Surrey Chapel, known in its new form as Christ 
 Church, and formerly celebrated for the ministry of 
 Rowland Hill, who was in deacon's orders, and Ranelagh 
 Chapel, Chelsea, now the Court Theatre, belonged to 
 the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion, or Calvinistic 
 Methodists. The few scattered congregations of Calvin- 
 istic Methodists which still remain have taken the title of 
 " Independent Methodists," and adopted, for the most 
 part, the usages of the Congregationalists. After John 
 Wesley's assumption of his power of ordaining bishops 
 and elders, his brother Charles ceased to take any part 
 in the affairs of the society. It is to Charles Wesley 
 that the following caustic epigram upon his brother's 
 action is attributed : — 
 
 " How easy now are bishops made, 
 By man or woman's whim ! 
 Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, 
 But who laid hands on him ? " 
 
 I. The first secession took place in 1797, under 
 the leadership of Alexander Kilham. The seceders 
 were at first called, from the name of their leader, 
 " Kilhamites," or the " New Itineracy," but they after- 
 wards formed themselves into the " Methodist New 
 Connexion." They separated from the society mainly 
 on the questions of (i) the right of the people to have 
 the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper ad- 
 
other Religions Coimnimions. 97 
 
 ministered to them by the hands of their own ministers, 
 and in their own chapels, at the usual hours of divine 
 service, and (2) the right of the people to a repre- 
 sentation in the district meetings and in the annual 
 Conference. Kilham was expelled, and he took with 
 him about five thousand scceders from the old Con- 
 nexion. The Conference solemnly recorded the follow- 
 ing not very charitable observation in its minutes : 
 "The Captain of our salvation is stronger than the 
 demon of discord, and He will, in His good time, drive 
 him back to the hell whence he came." Still both these 
 demands which the legal hundred refused, in the 
 intolerance of opposition which they inherited from 
 their founder, have been at length wholly conceded — 
 the former very soon after the occurrence of this disrup- 
 tion, and the latter in 187S. 
 
 2. In 1 8 10 the question of open-air preachings, camp- 
 meetings, and " revival services " led to another separa- 
 tion under two local preachers in Staffordshire. They 
 formed a section which professed to advocate the original 
 plans of Wesley, Whitefield, and other field-preachers, and 
 called themselves " Primitive Methodists." This section 
 numbers more members than all the other secessions taken 
 together from the old Connexion, and it is its most 
 vigorous rival. It is strongest in point of numbers in 
 Cornwall, Wales, and in some of the northern counties, 
 and its members have been called " Ranters," "Jumpers," 
 and in America " Shakers," owing to the exhibition at 
 their revival services of the peculiar h}-sterical conditions 
 which marked the early preaching of Wesle}-. Indi- 
 viduals, chiefly young women, are said to have lain 
 
 II 
 
98 The Chiu'cJi of England and 
 
 prostrate for hours during the services. Some were 
 restive, and in a trance-like state, with closed eyes, 
 walked about the chapel, or were ready, if not restrained, 
 to throw themselves from the gallery. " There is a con- 
 verting power," it is added, "about these services ; " but 
 the Registrar's returns, in certain districts, are said not 
 to present a favourable comment on their moralit}-. 
 
 3. In 181 5 some Methodists in Cornwall, under the 
 leadership of a local preacher named O'Bryan, separated 
 from the socict)- under the vague title of " Bible Chris- 
 tians." The only point which distinguishes them from 
 the old Connexion, and also from St. Paul, is that they 
 do " suffer women to teach." 
 
 4. In 1835 Dr. Warren, the minister of a chapel in 
 ^Manchester, ventured to oppose the Conference on a 
 proposal to establish a theological college. He was 
 expelled from his chapel, and, on the matter being 
 referred to the Court of Chancery, the expulsion was 
 sustained. Within two years of his expulsion about 
 twenty thousand Alethodists had joined him in forming 
 the"Wesleyan Methodist Association." But after Dr. 
 Warren was ordained, and became the incumbent of 
 All Souls' Church in IManchester, many of his former 
 adherents fell away, and those who remained united 
 themselves, in 1857, to the "Wesleyan Methodist Re- 
 formers." 
 
 5. Three of the leading Reformers " had been ex- 
 pelled from the society in 1S49, as having been the 
 originators of a series of pamphlets called " Fly Sheets," 
 in which the proceedings of the Conference were severely 
 criticized, and some strong and, as the Conference held, 
 
other Religions Communions. 99 
 
 scurrilous reflections on the conduct of the president 
 were introduced. These two sections, when amalgamated, 
 adopted the combined ancient and modern title of the 
 " United Methodist Free Church." 
 
 V. The strength of the original form of Methodism, 
 which has been, in its main features, retained in all the 
 various seceding bodies, was its effective system of 
 organization, whether for the purposes of religious disci- 
 pline among the classes of persons of whom the society 
 was originally formed, of finance, or of Church govern- 
 ment. 
 
 1. The first efforts which Wesley made to effect a 
 religious discipline was the formation of four or five 
 persons, classified according to the sexes, into "bands," 
 each band being under the leadership of an elder person 
 of their own sex. The purpose of these " bands " was 
 to keep up a sense of sin in the confraternity, and to 
 assist the members in overcoming temptation by means 
 of that mutual confession which St. James recommends 
 in cases of bodily weakness. Wesley, who was more 
 than once accused of favouring the Papists and Jesuits, 
 and of bringing in the Pretender, in reply to an 
 objection against these " bands " that they are mere 
 Popery, makes an answer worthy of record. " A very 
 stale objection," he says, " which many people make 
 against anything they do not like, and which betrays 
 the gross ignorance of those who make it in two respects: 
 (i) the confession we practise (in "bands") Papists do 
 not ; (2) the confession they hold {i.e. private to a priest) 
 our Church {i.e. the Church of England) holds also." 
 
 2. The system of " bands " was discontinued after 
 
TOO The Church of England and 
 
 Wesley's death, as soon as the " class-meeting," which 
 took their place, became an essential feature, " the 
 pearl," in the Methodist organization. The " classes " 
 consist of from twelve to thirty persons. Every Metho- 
 dist, that is, every "joined member," must belong to one 
 of these classes, and several of these classes form a 
 " society," or congregation. Each member of a class is 
 required or assumed to attend a meeting once in each 
 week, under a leader elected by the members, and to 
 recount his or her spiritual " experience " during the past 
 week. It has been more than once pointed out (i) that 
 when such a system descends into the level plain of a 
 mechanical routine, it is certain to encourage untruthful- 
 ness, by causing those who adopt it to exaggerate either 
 the wickedness out of which the}- profess to have been 
 delivered, or the heights of goodness to which they fancy 
 they have attained ; and (2) that this acquired habit of 
 untruthfulness in narrating the details of " spiritual 
 experiences " enters into and weakens the whole moral 
 character. It is said that a serious discussion is being 
 carried on in the society on the subject of the wisdom 
 of retaining the class-meeting as a test of membership,, 
 and on the other hand it is urged that " to surrender 
 the class-meeting is to take the heart out of Metho- 
 dism," and that to the diminution of the numbers in the 
 classes is to be attributed the "spiritual depression " of 
 Methodism. The classes also, it should be mentioned, 
 have an important bearing on the financial success of 
 the society, since every member is required to pay at 
 least one penny weekly, and one shilling a quarter to- 
 the general fund, out of which the ministers are paid. 
 
other Religious Comnnmions. loi 
 
 In addition, therefore, to the advantages to be derived 
 from the relation of " spiritual experiences " in the 
 classes, there are considerations of a more temporal 
 nature which demand the maintenance of the class- 
 meeting, and point a practical moral to the remark that 
 " to esteem the class-meeting lightly is to enfeeble the 
 pulsations of the heart." 
 
 3. The arrangement of " circuits " and " districts " 
 was the next step in the organization. Several of the 
 " societies," formed by the union of several " classes," are 
 gathered into a " circuit," which generally includes the 
 chapels in a central town, and the mission-rooms in 
 the villages for ten or twelve miles round. The " minis- 
 ters " who visit these stations are called " travelling or 
 itinerant preachers," and they do not remain in the same 
 circuit for more than three years. There are also " local " 
 preachers, who arc lay persons, residing in the circuit. 
 The senior minister of the circuit is called the " superin- 
 tendent." 
 
 4. The circuits arc finally grouped together into 
 " districts." Each district contains, on an average, 
 eighteen circuits. It has its meeting for purposes of 
 discipline and finance, and acts as a local committee of 
 the Conference. It has also its chairman and financial 
 secretary. 
 
 5. The Conference is, as we have seen, the central 
 governing body of the society. It meets annually in 
 London, or in some large provincial town, and exercises 
 a general supervision of the afiairs of the Wesleyan 
 Methodists in England, and in their mission stations 
 abroad. 
 
I02 The CImrch of England and 
 
 VI. The system of the original society is adopted, in 
 nearly every essential feature, b}- the various seceding 
 bodies. Each seceding society has its separate con- 
 ference, its president, and office-bearers, as each has its 
 separate ministr}', separate chapels, and separate 
 members. "To what purpose,'' it may be asked, in a 
 different spirit from that which is supposed to have 
 prompted the original question — " to what purpose is this 
 waste t " John Wesley, the revered founder of the 
 " United Society of ]\Iethodists,"' was, as we know, a 
 priest of the Church of England. All those who were 
 associated with him were either priests or deacons, or 
 lay communicants of the church. The}' were High 
 Churchmen of the school of Laud and Sanderson, and 
 Jeremy Taylor and Beveridge. ■ Their avowed object 
 was to arouse into activitj- the spiritual life ivitJiin the 
 Church. " I hold all the doctrines of the Church of 
 England," Wesley wrote as late as 1790, " and I love her 
 Liturgy, I approve her plan of discipline, and only wish 
 it could be put in practice." " A true IMethodist," he 
 wrote on another occasion, " is none other than a true 
 Churchman, precise and methodical in his obser\'ance of 
 Church rules respecting the practice of personal piety." 
 " Do we separate from the Church ? " it was asked at the 
 first Conference in 1744. The answer was, " ^^'e conceive 
 not. We hold communion with it for conscience' sake, 
 by constantl}- attending both the Word preached and 
 the sacraments administered therein." \\\ the ]\Iinutes 
 of Conference in 1749 we find these exhortations : " Let 
 all our preachers go to church. Let all our people go 
 constantly, and receive the Sacrament at every oppor- 
 
other Religions Coinmimions. 103 
 
 tunit}-. Warn all against calling our society ' a C/iuir/i,' or 
 ' the ChitrcJi,' and against calling our preachers ' minis- 
 ters.' " Again, in 1766, the question was asked, " Are wc 
 not dissenters?" And the answer was, "Wc arc not 
 Dissenters in the only sense which the law acknowledges, 
 namely, persons who believe it is sinful to attend the 
 services of the Church of England, for we do attend 
 them on all opportunities. We are not seceders. We 
 will not, we dare not, separate from the Church, and we 
 will do nothing willingly which tends to a separation from 
 it." " As for myself," said John Wesley, " I declare that 
 I have lived, and that I shall die, a member of the Church 
 of England, and none who regard my opinion or advice 
 will ever separate from it." 
 
 It is sometimes alleged that Wesley changed his 
 opinion on these essential points in the later years of 
 his life. Eut neither his own writings nor the obser- 
 vations of those who were most intimate with him 
 confirm th:s allegation. Alexander Knox says, " He was 
 a Church of England man of the highest tone." " I am 
 now," he says of himself in his last years, " and have been 
 from my childhood, a member, and from my manhood 
 a minister, of the Church of England, and I have no 
 desire or design to separate from it. I have uniformly 
 gone on for fifty years, never varying from the doctrine 
 of the Ciurch at all." And if in the earlier days of his 
 earnest enthusiasm he yielded too much, as we have 
 seen, to the tenets of the Moravians concerning instan- 
 taneous conversion, his practical experience of its un- 
 certain and, in some cases, disastrous results, led him in 
 his latir years to dwell upon it less and less, and in his 
 
I04 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 " Notes to the New Testament," and in the four volumes 
 of his "Sermons," to which every Wesleyan minister 
 subscribes as the text and standard of his teaching, he 
 reaffirms most distinctly the doctrine of regeneration 
 in Holy Baptism, as it is plainly set forth in all the 
 authorized formularies of the Church of England. But 
 Wesley was evidently a man of impetuous temper, who 
 could ill brook any opposition, cither on the part of his 
 wife or his preachers, and yet he could be easily led and 
 moulded under the wise and gentle and unsuspected 
 influence of other persons. He was certainly not free 
 from a goodly share of personal vanity and conceit of 
 his own power over those who came under his in- 
 fluence ; and he possessed the fatally facile gift of 
 persuading himself that he was certainly in the right 
 when he wished what he did to appear right to others. 
 When he was asked, on one occasion, by \\ ha: authority 
 he acted in opening preaching-houses in any parish 
 where he saw fit, his reply was, " By the authority 
 of Jesus Christ, conveyed to me by the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, when he laid hands upon SJ.c. ordained] me 
 and said, ' Take thou authority to preach the gospel ' " — a 
 statement which is partly true, but with a suppression of 
 the other important part of the commission, wlich runs, 
 " in the congregation where thou shalt be lawfully 
 appointed thereto." On another occasion he is said to 
 have made use of the expression which is recorded on his 
 monument in Westminster Abbey, " The world is my 
 parish." He had a profound respect for the exercise of 
 his own authority over other persons — " I say to this 
 man, Go, and he goeth ; " but he was somewhat slow 
 
other Religious Comnmnions. 105 
 
 to remember the other part of the soldier's admission, 
 " I also am a man under authority." 
 
 Wesley had for himself no idea of separating from the 
 Church, and, as I have shown, he urged his societies by 
 his words and by his writings not to think of separating, 
 or becoming Dissenters. But he must have been singu- 
 larly wanting in that "uncommon acuteness," which one 
 of his friends attributes to him, not to have already seen, 
 in the later years of his eventful life, that there were 
 manifest signs of an impending change which would 
 speedily follow on his death. Even the system which 
 he had with so much skilfulness elaborated would assist 
 in perfecting the process of disintegration. The weak 
 point in that system was the resting it chiefly on the 
 personal influence of one man, and thus removing it out 
 of the reach of the safeguards which the ordinary 
 organization of the Church supplies. If Wesley had 
 possessed more faith in the Episcopate as "a Divine 
 mystery for perpetuating the Church," and as the 
 authorized channel for the administration of the gifts of 
 grace, and less confidence in his own powers of organi- 
 zation, he might have reformed the Church, instead of 
 helping to found a sect, which soon became the prolific 
 parent of generations of sects. For the Methodists have 
 not only, in defiance of all the advice of their revered 
 founder, separated themselves from the communion of 
 the Church ; but they have become, however much they 
 may endeavour to explain away, or even to glory in, the 
 unpleasant fact, a divided house amongst themselves. 
 " The consequence has been an enormous waste of 
 spiritual power, with endless jealousies and confusions. 
 
io6 The CImrch of England and 
 
 arising from the co-cxistence of so many systems of 
 rival ' circuits ' and rival ' conferences.' " It is thought, 
 however, that the step which was taken in 1878, in the 
 admission of laymen to the Conference during the last 
 week of its annual sitting (which is called the represen- 
 tative, to distinguish it from the ministerial session) for 
 the purpose of dealing solelj- with questions of finance, 
 ma}-, within the next few years, lead to amalgamation 
 with the other Methodist bodies in the government of 
 ■which the la}- element is full}- admitted. If this event 
 should eome to pass, there can be little doubt that the 
 laity will eventuall}- secure for themselves what they 
 hold to be their lawful claim. The}- claim an entire 
 equality with the ministers in counsel and legislation in 
 all Methodist affairs. And this party — the Dissenting- 
 Methodist party — which is working its way to this 
 position, although not at present ver}- strong in numbers, 
 is strong in knowing what it wants, and in its resolution 
 to obtain it. 
 
 VII. Notwithstanding the gradual separation, after 
 Wesley's death, of the IMethodist societies from the 
 Church, mainly owing to the assumption by their minis- 
 ters of the position and powers of a priesthood, the usages 
 of divine worship have been alwa}-s more conformable to 
 the order of the Church than to that of the Dissenting 
 communions. A writer in the London Qutirterly 
 Revieii' (October, 1883;, remarks that "many of the 
 people for years still looked to the parish church 
 as their home, and acknowledged, so to speak, its 
 sitzeraiuty. But an increasing number owned no 
 allegiance whatever to the Established Church, and were 
 
other Religious Communions. 107 
 
 more or less impregnated with the dissenting tone and 
 spirit of seventy years ago — -a less embittered spirit than 
 that of ' political Dissent ' at the present day." During 
 the last few years the Church-Methodist party, as it 
 has been called, hitherto the dominant party, has been 
 gradually decreasing both in numbers and influence, and 
 the Dissenting-Methodist party has been as steadily on 
 the increase. It is this party which is now agitating for 
 full admission of the laity to the Conference at all its 
 sittings, as it had been i^rcviously agitating for a revision 
 of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 
 In the Conference of 1882, this revision, which had 
 been advocated eight }-ears before, was in the main 
 accepted, and " the first great doctrinal change ever 
 made in Methodism was accomplished." Hitherto the 
 Book of Common Prayer has been used in Wesleyan 
 Methodist chapels, with only certain verbal alterations. 
 In the revised book, of which the title is, " The Book of 
 Public Prayers and Services for the Use of the People 
 called Methodists," these slight alterations, made in 
 practice, have been printed in full, and besides this, there 
 are many important omissions and additions affecting 
 questions of primitive Church doctrine. 
 
 It might be thought tedious in this lecture to enter 
 into all the details of this latest revision of the prayer- 
 book, in what is called, by a strange perversion of the 
 meaning of a word, an " evangelical " or gospel direction. 
 These details are given in an article on " Wesleyan 
 Methodism," in the Church Quarterly Reviciv (January, 
 1885), which is well worth reading and re-reading. 
 Suffice it to say that, as the writer of that article clearl}- 
 
io8 The Church of England and 
 
 shows, the office of Holy Baptism, which from the 
 Church's point of view stands at the entrance of the 
 spiritual life of a Christian, is, as revised by the Wesleyan 
 ^lethodist Conference, not only at variance with the 
 teaching of the gospel and of the primitive Church, but 
 it is also in flagrant contradiction to the doctrinal 
 writings of John Wesley. In other words, the Con- 
 ference, by accepting this revised book, has practically 
 torn to pieces its trust deed of 1763. Well may a 
 former president (Dr. Osborn) have said at the Con- 
 ference, " I feel the existence of ^Methodism is at stake 
 [by this revision]. I cannot be a party to any system of 
 teaching which shall bring me into direct and categorical 
 contradiction to the standards to which I subscribed." 
 
 The chief reasons for the issue of the revised book of 
 offices, given by a writer in the London Quarterly 
 Revieiu (October, 1883), under the editorship of Dr. 
 Rigg, the most prominent leader of the revisionists, are : 
 (i) That the use of the Book of Common Prayer in the 
 Wesleyan Churches has acted as a direct training of 
 Methodist young people for the Church of England. 
 John Wesley, in " his incidental teaching," by which Dr. 
 Rigg says he declines to be bound, advised every one 
 of his preachers, who preached in Church hours, to read 
 part of the Church prayers, " because," he said, "this will 
 endear the Church Service to our brethren." (2) That 
 the Book of Common Prayer contains the catechism of 
 the Church of England, and the baptismal services, 
 which strongly favour the dogma of baptismal re- 
 generation. John Wesley, in one of the legal standard 
 writings to which every minister has subscribed, 
 
other Religious Communions. 109 
 
 says, " It is certain our Church " (that is, the Cliurch of 
 England, for he never allowed his " society " to be called 
 a "Church") "supposes that all who are baptized in 
 their infanc}- are at the same time born again (regene- 
 rated), and it is observed that the whole ofifice for the 
 baptism of infants proceeds upon this supposition." 
 And (3) that this service book is equivalent to a manifesto 
 that Wesleyan Methodism, in regard to all Church 
 responsibilities and all pastoral functions, is now every- 
 where and in every way an independent and fully organ- 
 ized communion ; a truly characteristic Evangelical 
 Church holding its own among the different Churches of 
 the empire. John Wesley, in his " incidental teaching," 
 emphatically begs the members of his "society" to re- 
 frain from calling it a "Church," and calls upon them to 
 be " Church of England men " still. The meaning of all 
 this is that the last links which bound " the people called 
 Methodists " with the people called Churchmen arc being 
 or, it may be, have been alrcad}-, deliberately snapped 
 asunder. This does not present a very encouraging out- 
 look to the earnest believers and w^orkers in the noble 
 cause of " home reunion." It looks much more as if the 
 relations between Methodism and the Church will be 
 less friendly than before, and as if the Methodist 
 " Churches " were about to haul down the flag of a 
 "benevolent neutrality," and to pass over into the 
 opposing ranks of the Dissenting denominations. " Can 
 this," it has been asked, " be for the welfare of English 
 Christianity ? " 
 
 The Methodist Recorder (Febuary 23, 1^83) boldly 
 avers that "the Wesleyan Methodist.s, from being fricnd.s 
 
no The CJmrch of England and 
 
 of the Establishment, are being converted into enemies." 
 They are beginning to disown the relationship of 
 their societies with the Church, which their fore-elders 
 were so ready and so proud to acknowledge, and they 
 prefer to trace their spiritual origin to the Moravians 
 from whom John Wesley, as we have seen, entirely 
 separated himself, when he was disgusted with their 
 fanatical opinions. When the Methodists of this gener- 
 ation have succeeded in disowning their spiritual mother, 
 and in revising the teaching of the revered founder of 
 their " society," how long will it be before, in their case 
 too, " the pious founder will go to the wall " .'' 
 
 VIII. There is one lesson, however, which the founder 
 has taught his fellow-Churchmen, and for which we 
 ought to be grateful. He has taught us to go down to 
 the poor and to the outcast. He has taught us how to 
 turn to practical account the apostolic injunction, "con- 
 descend to men of low estate." He has taught us that 
 the classes who, by their daily employment, are far re- 
 moved from the influences of culture and refinement, 
 cannot be drawn to the observances and the practical 
 duties of religion merely by dry and unimpassioned 
 addresses to the intellect, which is necessarily, in great 
 part, in their case insufficiently trained. The Church 
 must not be afraid of appealing to the emotions, which 
 are reached chiefly through the senses of sight and hear- 
 ing. Methodism, it has been said, would not be the 
 power that it now is but for its vigorous psalmody. The 
 hymn-book of the society supplies the place of a book 
 of devotions. It is an epitome of personal experiences, 
 although sung to well-known music by a united congre- 
 
other Religions Coinnmnions. 1 1 1 
 
 gation. The Church of England has happily, of late 
 years, recognized the necessity of appealing more to 
 the emotional sentiment by the plentiful use of hymns. 
 In nearly all the accepted hymn-books there is, as might 
 be expected, more of what is called the objective than 
 the subjective element ; more, that is, of reference, in 
 the way of devout and grateful praise, to the great facts 
 of the gospel, than to our individual and personal interest 
 in those facts. But this subjective side of religion has 
 been by no means, nor should it ever be, neglected, and 
 some of the sweetest hymns to be found in every Church 
 hymn-book are from the pen of Charles Wesley. 
 
 One of the earliest objections raised against the 
 Methodist system by the high and dry Churchmanship 
 of that day was that it tended to enkindle and encourage 
 enthusiasm. But enthusiasm is one of the motive powers 
 in all religious progress. And the Church can afford to 
 make ample room in its system for enthusiasm, because 
 it can adequately supply the means necessary to regulate 
 and temper it. Wesley's plan of gathering in and " gar- 
 nering " his store of converts, as Whitefield pointed out 
 long ago, was the stronghold of the Methodist position, 
 whereas, as he said, his own work of merely exciting the 
 momentary attention of his hearers by fervent appeals 
 was " like a rope of sand." This is the plan which is 
 adopted by the Church in the various " missions," as 
 they are called, which are held, from time to time, in 
 our cities and large towns, and also in rural parishes. 
 It is not sufficient to excite enthusiasm. It will soon 
 evaporate, unless it is expended on active work. For 
 enthusiasm in the spiritual domain is co-related to active 
 
112 The Church of England and 
 
 work, as heat is to mechanical force in the physical 
 domain. Heat generates force, and force generates heat. 
 We must not expect to retain a permanent hold on those 
 Avhose enthusiasm for the highest good of man has for 
 so long a time slumbered and slept, unless we make use 
 of some kind of Methodism, that is, of some well-devised 
 and simple plans for religious associations and mutual 
 help. These the Church supplies by means of " guilds " 
 and associations of lay helpers, and kindred confrater- 
 nities, or " little churches within the Church." What- 
 ever debt is due to the genius of John \\'csley, in the 
 organization of such plans, we do not shrink from readily 
 and gratefulh- acknowledging. But we do not forget, 
 nor ought others to forget, that the models and materials 
 for the composition of his .system of " classes " and 
 " preachers " arc to be found in the Pietist revivals in 
 Germany, in the "societies" of Horneck and Bishop 
 Beveridge in the Church of England, in the confraternities 
 of St. Vincent de Paul, in the orders of the Preaching 
 Friars {Firrcs}, and in that magnificent idea of the 
 Middle Ages — the monastic system. 
 
other Religions Communions. 1 1 3 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 THE NEW CHURCH — CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH 
 —THE BRETHREN — THE TOSITIVISTS. 
 
 I HAVE spoken, in the previous lectures, of the history, 
 the organization, and the doctrines of those religious 
 communions in England which have come into exist- 
 ence between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. I 
 propose, in the present lecture, to give a brief account 
 of the history and doctrines of three communions which 
 are of more recent origin, and respecting which informa- 
 tion is often needed. These are known as the " Swe- 
 denborgians," or "New Church;" the " Irvingites," or 
 " Catholic Apostolic Church ; " and the " Darbyites," or 
 " Plymouth Brethren," or simpl}-, " The Brethren." I 
 will also add in this lecture a few words respecting the 
 doctrines of the " Positivists." 
 
 I. I. " Swedenborgianism," or " The Church of the New 
 Jerusalem," or, as the adherents of Swedenborg's prin- 
 ciples now prefer to be called, " The New Church," arose 
 in the following manner. A small gathering of those 
 persons who had received the theological speculations of 
 Swedenborg formed themselves, in 1783, into a society 
 for the study of his writings, under the name of " The 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 Theosophic Society." In 1787 the members of this 
 society began to hold meetings for worship in each 
 other's houses, and at one of these meetings James 
 Hindmarsh, a Methodist preacher, was appointed "to 
 officiate in the room of a priest," administering "the 
 Holy Supper," and baptizing four of the members. In 
 1788 a chapel was opened in Great Eastcheap, and the 
 name of " The Xew Church " was adopted in the place 
 of that of " The Theosophic Society." It was then 
 thought desirable that the Church should have a settled 
 ministr}-, and that some one of their number should be 
 elected to perform the rite of ordination. They agreed 
 to cast lots, and the lot fell upon Robert Hindmarsh, a 
 journeyman printer in Clerkenwell, London. Accord- 
 ingly he proceeded to ordain his father, James Hindmarsh, 
 and Samuel Smith, both of them preachers who had 
 seceded from Wesle\''s society. When, about thirty 
 years afterwards, some doubts were raised as to the 
 competency of Robert Hindmarsh, a layman, to originate 
 a succession of ministers in the Xew Church, it was 
 determined that he himself was virtually ordained by 
 the divine auspices of Heaven — " a decision," it has 
 been said, " more convenient than logical," more easily 
 assumed than capable of proof. The society, which 
 had been established in ^Manchester by ]\Ir. Clowes, the 
 Rector of St. John's, for printing and publishing his 
 translations of Swedenborg's writings, followed the ex- 
 ample of the Theosophic Societ)- in London, and estab- 
 lished itself in a chapel in Peter Street in 1793. A 
 " General Annual Conference " was also organized after 
 the pattern of that existing among the \\'esleyan Method- 
 
other Religions Couimiinions. 
 
 115 
 
 ists, and its first meeting was held in 1789. In 1815 a 
 "threefold ministry," consisting of" ministers," " pastors," 
 and " ordaining ministers," was estabhshed, and, in addi- 
 tion, a " minister superintendent " over the Church at 
 large was appointed. Most of the societies at first used 
 a modification of the Book of Common Prayer as their 
 manual of divine worship, but no particular form or 
 ritual is considered to be binding on each society. In 
 addition to those who have connected themselves with 
 the society, which became a religious sect under Hind- 
 marsh, there are, it is said, many of the clergy and laity 
 in the Church of England who have adopted some of 
 Swedenborg's philosophical and religious opinions, but 
 who have not thought it to be necessary on that account 
 to become members of a " New Church." On the other 
 hand, the members of the New Church have never dis- 
 played any feeling of sectarian antagonism to the " old 
 Church " on either political or religious grounds. " It is 
 proper," says one writer, " to speak of the ' societies of 
 the New Church ' by way of distinction, but not of limit- 
 ation and exclusion." 
 
 " The New Church," we are told, " is not Sweden- 
 borgianism. Swedenborg is no more the author of it 
 than Newton is the author of the solar system." If 
 this statement is intended to assure us that Swedenborg- 
 himself did not found, and probably had no intention 
 of founding, a religious sect, it is true. That "greatest 
 man living or dead " remained in the Lutheran com- 
 munion till his death. But there surely is a sense in 
 which Swedenborg must be looked upon as the author 
 of the New Church, notwithstanding the somewhat un- 
 
1 1 6 The Chiu'ch of England and 
 
 filial eagerness with which his followers hasten to disown 
 their spiritual parentage. Swedenborg asserts that 
 certain revelations have been made to himself. He 
 makes known in writing the substance of these revela- 
 tions. They arc accepted as divine revelations by other 
 persons. Then a society of fellow-believers becomes 
 graduall)- formed for the promulgation of their belief, 
 and for persuading other persons to believe the same. 
 The increase in the number of believers necessitates 
 some method of organization. A society or Church 
 represents this form of organization. It draws up some 
 kind of articles of faith or religion, to which it requires 
 at least the implied assent of its members. It is clear 
 that the end is the result of the beginning, and a begin- 
 ning is due to some one who begins. The writings of 
 Swedenborg, in effect, led to the formation of the New 
 Church, as a society, to study, and maintain, and promul- 
 gate the special teaching on certain points which those 
 writings set forth. 
 
 I need not enter here into an account of the 
 personal history of Swedenborg, or of the nature of 
 his philosophical writings, further than to say that in 
 his early life he had devoted himself to the study of 
 mathematics and ph}-sical science : that he was the first 
 to draw attention to the metrical or decimal system of 
 money, weights, and measures ; that he held the office 
 of assessor to the Royal School of Mines at Stockholm, 
 and that he was ennobled by the King of Sweden. From 
 the study of physical science he turned his attention to 
 the stud}- of metaphysics and theologj\ He was only 
 one among so many who, while attaining to excellence 
 
other Religions Comnmnions. 117 
 
 in the study of physics, — being, as wc should now say, 
 distinguished scientists, — find the study of metaphysics 
 (the laws and processes of thought) beyond their grasp, 
 and who regard theology as practically a limitless area 
 for the discovery of the wildest specimens of belief. " A 
 good scientist," it has been said by Professor Momerie, 
 in his excellent sermons on " Agnosticism," " may be a 
 bad metaphysician. The greatness of his achievements 
 in science does not give any authority whatever to his 
 views upon other subjects. No one can be an expert in 
 everything. The scientist has a mission in the world 
 w'hich cannot be fulfilled by the metaphysical philoso- 
 pher, and the latter has a mission which cannot be ful- 
 filled by the scientist," " The world," says Professor 
 Tyndall, " embraces not only a Newton but a Shake- 
 speare, not only a Boyle but a Raphael, not only a 
 Kant but a Beethoven, not only a Darwin but a Carlyle. 
 They are not opposed, but supplementary ; not mutually 
 exclusive, but reconcilable." It is easy to be seen that 
 the knowledge and mastery which Swedcnborg had 
 acquired in the varied domain of physical science, so far 
 as his opportunities at that day enabled him to advance, 
 inspired him with an easy confidence in the powers to 
 master and perhaps to introduce improved methods into 
 the sciences of metaphysics and theology. He was 
 certainly theological in his scientific method. Perhaps 
 this would now be considered a preliminary flaw in the 
 casting or moulding of his arguments. He paid no 
 devout homage to " an Unknown God." He had not 
 thought fit to " get rid of the doctrine of a higher life," 
 in order to enable him, Avith more "exactness of thought, 
 
1 1 8 The C/mrch of England and 
 
 to become the student of the forms of a lower hfe." He 
 had not seen his way to deny the possibility of knowing- 
 anything about the existence of the soul, or to resolve 
 the soul into a series of sensations and thouerhts. In 
 other words, he was not what would be now called an 
 A-gnostic (a, witJiout ; gnosis, knoivledgc). In his " Prin- 
 cipia," he accepts the existence of a First Creative Cause. 
 On the relation which exists between God, nature, and 
 philosophy he says, " True philosophy does not con- 
 found God and nature. It leads rather to the most 
 profound admiration and adoration of God." Again, in 
 his work on " The Philosophy of the Infinite," he indi- 
 cates the assent which reason and revelation give to the 
 existence of an Infinite Being, and to the existence and 
 immortality of the human soul. 
 
 The principal works which illustrate his peculiar views 
 in theology are " Arcana Celestia " (Heavenly Mysteries), 
 and " The True Christian Religion." They represent the 
 matured opinions of a man well gifted with intellectual 
 powers, then between sixty and eighty years of age. In 
 a letter, written at the age of eighty, to his dear friend. 
 Rev. Thomas Hartley, the non-resident Rector of Wen- 
 wick, in Northamptonshire, Swedenborg fixed the year 
 1743, the fift\--fifth of his age, as that in which he was 
 " called to a holy office by the Lord Himself, Who opened 
 in him a sight of the spiritual world, and enabled him to 
 converse with spirits and angels." " He conversed," as 
 he tells us in his " True Christian Religion," " with 
 apostles, departed popes, emperors, and kings, as well 
 as with the late reformers of the Church, Luther, Calvin, 
 and Melancthon." Of Luther he said that, " as soon as 
 
other Religious Comvmnions. i \ 9 
 
 the reformer learnt what was taught by the New Church, 
 he began to ridicule his own former tenets." He instances 
 the cases of Elisha's servant in the Old Testament, and 
 of St. Paul in the New, as having had opportunities of 
 intercourse with, or visions of, the world of spirits, but 
 he draws this distinction between those favoured ones 
 and himself, that while their visions lasted but for a 
 brief period of time, his own continued, without cessa- 
 tion, for nearly thirty years. If he were asked by what 
 means he was enabled to associate with the inhabitants 
 of other worlds for so long a time during his natural life, 
 he would answer that it was by means of an " internal 
 respiration," which our first parents, he thought, had lost 
 when they fell from their state of innocence, and that 
 by means of " external respiration" he was enabled, at 
 the same time, to live as a human being in this material 
 world. In early childhood he appears to have been 
 subject to .some peculiar abnormal action in the organs 
 of respiration. He was once asked whether it was pos- 
 sible for any one to come into the same state of seership 
 as he enjoyed, and he answered, " Take good care, this 
 is the direct road to insanity ; for when a man pores 
 over spiritual and hidden things, he cannot protect 
 himself against the delusions of hell — when by his own 
 speculations he tries to fathom heavenly things which 
 transcend his comprehension." It is thought by some 
 writers that Swedenborg had himself nearly reached the 
 goal at the end of the direct road of which he speaks. 
 " A man," it has been said, " who is capable of drawing 
 a conclusion that natural reason cannot harmonize with 
 spiritual truth, because in a dream he had seen a beetle 
 
1 20 
 
 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 that could not use its feet, is capable of any absurdity 
 of which the imagination can conceive." On the other 
 hand, Tencmann, in his " History of Philosophy," en- 
 deavours to defend him against the charge of insanity, by 
 saying that " Svvedenborg, when treating of the sublimest 
 realities, proceeds with the coolness and imperturbable 
 deliberation of a man entering items in his ledger." 
 
 There is much to admire in the singularly pure and 
 childlike character of the man, and the simple beauty 
 of his writings. " But it is one thing," say the authors 
 of "The Unseen Universe," "to admit the beauty, 
 the philosophical completeness, and even the possible 
 truth of many of his statements, and another thing to 
 believe that he actually conversed with the inhabitants 
 of other worlds in the way in which one human being 
 converses with another. Had Swedenborg confined 
 himself to the relation of his experiences in the invisible 
 universe, it would have been difficult to have proved 
 that he was subject to an illusion. But when he dis- 
 courses with angels from the planets in the visible uni- 
 verse he enters upon dangerous ground, more especially 
 as his information relates only to those planets of which 
 the existence was known when he wrote, Neptune and 
 Uranus being passed over. When we find that he peoples 
 Jupiter and Saturn with inhabitants like ourselves, 
 scientific analogy is so strongly against his assertions 
 that we conclude his speculations on these subjects to 
 have been solely the product of his imagination, and 
 that he mistook these religious speculations for special 
 revelations." " Swedenborg," says one from a very dif- 
 ferent platform, " changed realities into dreams, and then 
 
other Religions Cominiuiions. 121 
 
 out of the dreams constructed facts with w hich he built 
 up his system of metaphysical theology." If we can 
 free ourselves from the speculative mysticism which per- 
 vades his later writings, and from the sense of the over- 
 powering self-consciousness of the writer — that " absolute 
 egotism which constitutes one of the points in which 
 religious fanaticism borders nearest upon insanity " — we 
 shall find many passages in his writings, especially in 
 his treatise on " The Christian Religion," which cannot 
 be seriously read without producing mental and moral 
 results of the utmost benefit. 
 
 2. But it is time to turn to the consideration of the 
 chief doctrines which are held by the members of the 
 New Church. Swedenborg certainly did not contemplate 
 or encourage the formation of a separate communion or 
 sect, even when, in the rapturous language of an ecstatic 
 vision, he spoke of the incoming of " di fifth Church," 
 predicted as the " New Jerusalem descending out of 
 heaven from God," and being established by means of 
 the revelation of the spiritual sense of the inspired Word, 
 of which revelation His servant Swedenborg claims to 
 have been the chosen instrument. He indicates that 
 this " New Church " is to consist of all those in the whole 
 Church who worship the Lord alone, and " do works meet 
 for repentance." He rather attempted, if without much 
 present success, what Comte has since attempted on other 
 lines, to introduce a new philosophy of religion which 
 -should be received by all sects and schools of thought. 
 The writings of Swedenborg provide the source from 
 which the adherents of the New Church have elected to 
 draw their "articles of religion," or the " standard of their 
 
122 The C/nwck of England and 
 
 doctrines." This standard at first took the form of 
 forty-two propositions. These propositions were again 
 embodied in thirty-two resolutions, which were agreed 
 to at the first conference held in 1789. These thirty- 
 two resolutions have again become condensed into 
 twelve " articles of faith." The first article states the 
 decision of the New Church on the doctrine of the 
 Trinity. " Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the 
 only God of heaven and earth, and in Him is the divine 
 Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." 
 
 "The New Church," says Mr. Chauncey Giles, "is 
 Unitarian in the broadest and fullest and absolute 
 sense of the term, not, however, by denial of the Divinity 
 of Jesus Christ, but by the belief that He is the only 
 Divine Being. God is one Person in the same sense 
 that man, who was created in God's image, and after God's 
 likeness, is one person. Man is a trinity of body, soul, 
 and spirit, or operating energy and life. The soul is 
 the father, the body is the son, and the life-giving 
 power by which all man's activities are excited is the 
 spirit." " The Trinity in God is not a Trinity of 
 Persons but of Essences, the Father being essential 
 Divinity, the Son the Divine Humanity, and the Holy 
 Ghost the Divine Proceeding." " The Nicene and 
 Athanasian doctrine concerning a Trinity," says Swed- 
 enborg, " have together given birth to a faith which has 
 entirely overturned the Christian Church." 
 
 The New Church professes to reconcile the Unitarian 
 and Trinitarian ideas of God. " It is at once absolutely 
 Unitarian, and at the same time more clearly and 
 decidedly Trinitarian than any other Church," Like 
 
othei' Religious Communions. 123 
 
 many another attempt which has been made, in both 
 ancient and modern times, to explain, and illustrate, and 
 simplify this doctrine of the Divine Trinity in Unity, 
 this one on the part of the New Church so far from 
 settling the vexed question in a way to satisfy the 
 reason and content the heart, seems rather to increase 
 the inherent difficulties which exist not only in the meta- 
 physical language of the creed, but in the brief formula 
 itself, which looks so ineffably simple in the pages of the 
 New Testament — " The Name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 The doctrine of the New Church respecting the 
 Incarnation and the human nature of our Lord is that 
 it was not " perfect," for it partook of the imperfect 
 nature of the virgin, and that the object of Jehovah 
 God was to perfect this humanity, and to return with it 
 into the Divinity which He had from all eternity. I do not 
 think that the Old Church would be disposed, by accept- 
 ing the doctrine of the New Church, to loose her hold 
 on the ancient belief that our Lord's human nature was, 
 from the first moment of the Incarnation, "perfect." He 
 represented human nature as it existed before the fall, 
 when it was pronounced by the Divine Creator to be 
 " very good." 
 
 The doctrine representing the second advent of our 
 Lord is that it is taking place now ; that it is a coming 
 not in person, but in the power and glory of His holy 
 Word ; and that during this period the old Christian 
 Church is coming to an end, and the New Church is 
 being prepared to take its place. Swedenborg main- 
 tained that the last judgment was accomplished in the 
 
124 
 
 spiritual world in the year 1757, when the "former 
 heaven and earth " (/>. the Old Church) passed away. 
 
 The doctrine held and taught by the New Church 
 i-especting the Holy Scriptures is that there are two 
 kinds of truth in the Word — (l) genuine, (2) apparent. 
 All that speaks of God's love and mercy is genuine ; all 
 that speaks of His anger and wrath is apparent. The 
 Word is written according to the relation between 
 natural and spiritual things. The natural or literal 
 sense is the basis of the spiritual. These two senses are 
 united by a system or " science of correspondences " like 
 the soul and body of man. Light and heat express 
 certain conditions in the natural or material sense. They 
 express by a correspondence the condition of knowledge 
 and love in the spiritual sense. The notions conveyed 
 to our minds, for example, by the distinguishing titles 
 of lamb, fox, bear, wolf, as applied to human beings, 
 " correspond " with the characters of the persons so 
 described. They imply innocence, cunning, surliness, or 
 ferocity. The Bible is thus a collection of pictures, some 
 of which are copies of events in this world, others of 
 events in the spiritual world. The number of the 
 canonical Books of the Old and New Testament is by 
 this new rule much reduced. Ten Books of the Old 
 Testament Scriptures, and the Acts of Apostles and all 
 the Epistles in the New, are excluded as " not having 
 the internal sense." 
 
 These are the chief " articles of faith " as taught in 
 the New Church, and in the writings of Swedenborg. 
 Although he was nominally a member of the Lutheran 
 communion, he could not subscribe to that doctrine 
 
other Religions Comnmnions. 125 
 
 which was ahnost made the crucial test of a standing 
 or faUing Church — I mean the Lutheran (which is 
 certainly not the Pauline,) doctrine of "justification by 
 faith," " generally regarded as the pillar of Protestantism." 
 In like manner the doctrine of the atonement and of 
 imputed righteousness, which are called the " impossi- 
 ble " doctrines of the Old Church, are plainly those 
 which Swedenborg learnt from Lutheranism, and do not 
 fairly represent the teaching on these subjects of the 
 Catholic Church. 
 
 The New Church lays great stress on the duty of 
 love to the Lord and obedience to His commandments, 
 and teaches that a good life is the essence of Chris- 
 tianity here, as it will be the test to each one when 
 summoned to his place in the spiritual world. 
 
 It is difficult to recognize in these statements any 
 special mission of the New Church — " to make all things 
 new " — because, with the exception of its theories con- 
 cerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, its teaching is 
 very far from being new to all well-instructed members 
 of the Old Church. 
 
 The New Church claims to be a universal Church 
 by virtue of being itself constituted of universal prin- 
 ciples. It claims also to be essentially and pre-eminently 
 evangelical, since it believes more full)-, more implicitly, 
 more profoundly in the divine truth contained in the 
 Gospels than any other Church. It claims also to be 
 liberal and rationalistic, in the sense of advocating the 
 principles of humanity and of encouraging the largest 
 and freest use of the reason. But these are claims 
 which arc surely not at all " new." 
 
126 The Church of EngloMd a7id 
 
 II. I. The '• Irvingites," or "The Catholic Apostolic 
 Church," as the members of this communion prefer to 
 be called, claims, next in order, our attention. 
 
 Edward Irving, from whom the former of these 
 designations is derived, was for some years the pastor 
 of a Presbyterian congregation in London. Irving 
 believed and taught that the extraordinary gifts of the 
 Holy Spirit were not limited in their communication to 
 the days of the apostles, but were destined to continue 
 through each succeeding age of the Christian Church. 
 Especially was this the case, he believed, with the "gift 
 of tongues." The result was that the Church in Regent 
 Square, to which he had removed from Hatton Garden, 
 became the scene of much " prophesying," and " speaking 
 in tongues," or, at least, in unintelligible sounds. 
 
 But in addition to these " manifestations," Irving was 
 said by his opponents to have taught certain heretical 
 doctrines respecting the human nature of our Lord. 
 He held, they said. His human nature to have been 
 capable of sin {peccable) although not sinful {peccatit). 
 In other words, that He could have sinned, although " He 
 did no sin." Our Lord's temptations, he held truly, 
 were as real as ours, which he thought they could not 
 have been if the commonly accepted doctrine of our Lord's 
 humanity Avere true. But " the sinlessness of Christ 
 is the historical expression of the absolute harmony 
 which existed from the first moment of the Incarnation 
 between His human will and His divine will. He was 
 man in soul and man in body, but He was man unfallen." 
 It was because of this perfect union between the divine 
 and the human in Christ that the temptations which 
 
127 
 
 were presented to Him, were at once put behind Him. 
 It is said that Irving interpreted the passage in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews (ix. 28), " He shall appear the 
 second time without sin," to mean, that at our Lord's 
 first advent He was not free from the possibility of sin, 
 but that at His second advent even the bare possibility 
 would be absent. The preposition in Greek, which the 
 writer of the Epistle uses, means " apart from," i.e. having 
 nothing to do with sin, inasmuch as it will be as Victor 
 and Judge, and not as a Saviour bearing the sins of 
 others, that our Lord will come again. 
 
 Irving was condemned and deposed from his ministry 
 with the sanction of the General Assembly of the 
 Presbyterian Church in Scotland. After his deposition, 
 he gathered some members of his former congregation 
 into a room, which is said to have been an old studio 
 belonging to Benjamin West, the artist, in Newman 
 Street. It was here that the first stejss were taken to 
 organize and develop the Catholic Apostolic Church. 
 
 The order of " projDhets " was declared to have 
 been revived, and soon afterwards one of the " prophets " 
 pointed out some one else as an "apostle," and that 
 sacred office was also declared to have been restored. 
 The orders of the Christian ministry were stated to be 
 fourfold — " apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors." 
 The first " ordination " took place on Christmas-day, 
 1832, when an "angel" or bishop was appointed to 
 preside over the Church at Albury, near Guildford. 
 
 Albury Park, now the property of the Duke of 
 Northumberland, was at that time the residence of 
 Mr. Henry Drummond, M.l'., who has been called "the 
 
128 The CJiui'ch of Enghmd and 
 
 financial backbone of this communion. He built the 
 church at Albuiy, which was for a long time its head- 
 quarters, and he was the chief contributor to the magni- 
 ficent " cathedral " in Gordon Square. It was at Albury 
 Park that clerical conferences, attended also by laymen 
 and Nonconformist ministers, had, in Irving's early 
 days, assembled for the study of prophecy. 
 
 Irving was ordained in 1833 as " angel " of the Church 
 in Newman Street. The voices of the prophets now 
 called for the appointment of " elders " to exercise the 
 priestly office, and of deacons to manage financial 
 matters. In 1835 the number of the apostles, which 
 had been hitherto limited to six, was increased so as to 
 imitate the original number of " the twelve." A council 
 was established " by the word of prophecy," and a system 
 of correspondence, on the model of the Jewish tabernacle 
 in the wilderness, and a " testimony " was addressed to 
 King William IV. and the Privy Council, to the Pope, 
 and to Prince Metternich. In consequence of disputes 
 which arose respecting the relative authority of the 
 apostles and the " council," its meetings were suspended 
 in 1840, and they have not been since renewed. The 
 number of the apostles has now been reduced by a 
 secession and by death to one, but " the voices of the 
 prophets " may probably be invoked at any time to 
 supply a succession. 
 
 2. The only standard of faith which the members 
 of this communion recognize are the creeds of the 
 Catholic Church. They admit the continued succession 
 from the Apostles of the three orders of the Christian 
 ministry, as the}- exist in the Churches of the East and 
 
other Religious Communions. 129 
 
 West. They justify themselves from the charge of 
 schism on the ground that it is permitted to them by 
 an ordinance of paramount authority, which they believe 
 has been restored for the benefit of the universal Church, 
 to form a communion in and through which the scattered 
 members of the Church, or body of Christ, may be 
 reunited in visible communion. 
 
 One of their chief works, undertaken to further this 
 object, has been the compilation of a liturgy, which is 
 designed to combine the excellences of all the chief 
 liturgies which have been in use in the Christian Church. 
 " The Holy Eucharist " is offered, and the Communion 
 administered every Lord's Day, and the daily service is 
 said at the appointed hours. The eucharistic vestments ; 
 the two altar lights, symbolical, as some affirm, of the 
 two Natures in our Lord ; the seven lamps burning 
 before the altar, a symbol of the " seven spirits before 
 the throne " ; and incense, symbolical of the ascent of 
 the supplications of the faithful as a sweet-smelling 
 sacrifice before God, are to be seen in constant use in 
 the churches of this communion. A portion of the ele- 
 ments which have been (as is assumed) consecrated 
 at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist is kept in 
 " reservation " in a tabernacle at the back of the altar, 
 as a symbol of the jicrpetual presence of our Lord in 
 His Church, and partly for the more reverent and 
 convenient mode of administering the Blessed Sacrament 
 to the sick and the infirm. On entering and leaving 
 the church the worshippers bow reverently towards the 
 altar as to " the throne of the royal presence of the King 
 of king.s." 
 
 K 
 
130 The Church of England and 
 
 This description, given partly in the words of a 
 member of this communion, of the worship and ritual 
 in their churches, forces upon our minds two reflections. 
 The first is one of marvel that out of the dry light of 
 Scotch Presbyterianism, with its aversion to sacer- 
 dotalism, and even a moderate ritual, there should have 
 sprung, by a process of spiritual evolution, a system 
 which assumes to be sacramental, sacerdotal, and ritual- 
 istic. The second reflection is more sad. It is that 
 from a Churchman's point of view this is all imitation. 
 This communion or " Church " has no historical basis, 
 though it aims at being catholic or universal, and claims 
 to be apostolic and primitive. It rests its whole being 
 on supernatural gifts, supernatural voices, and super- 
 natural signs. Doubtless there was, in the early days 
 of Irving's ministry, a reaction in his mind, which by 
 his marvellous power of exciting sympathy he created 
 in the minds of others, against the cold, hard, dry dogma 
 that the "gifts" of the Spirit had ceased to be admin- 
 istered ; that " after the day of Pentecost and the 
 gradual departure of the apostles, the ladder set up 
 between earth and heaven was taken away." But there 
 were still, it might have been known, all the necessary 
 gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit to be received 
 through the ordinary means of grace in the Church in 
 the midst of His people, which God had mercifully 
 preserved, in spite of corruption within and attacks from 
 without, to be the witness and the consecrated admin- 
 istrator of these gifts. 
 
 Both the so-called " New Church " and the " Catholic 
 Apostolic Church " seem to aim, with kindly charity, at 
 
other Religious Communions. 131 
 
 embracing, through their respective communions or the 
 acceptance of their opinions, all other Christian commu- 
 nions. They have both had their spiritual seer and their 
 prophetic utterances. But the historical evidence, such 
 as is vouchsafed in the original form and constitution of 
 the Christian Church, and in every case in which a 
 Church has been founded in any locality on an apostolic 
 basis, is wholly wanting. The process of comprehension 
 would, in fact, be more properly reversed. 
 
 III. I. The "Brethren," as the members of the third 
 of the communions which I have mentioned prefer to 
 be called, existed as a society first at Dublin, and then 
 at Plymouth, between the years 1820 and 1830. They 
 were known for a long time, from the fact of their 
 meetings at Providence Chapel in this latter town, as 
 " Plymouth Brethren." The person who is said to have 
 first given a form to the opinions of the Brethren was 
 a student at Trinity College, Dublin, named Groves, who 
 was preparing for admission to holy orders. During 
 this time, however, he had come to nearly the same 
 conclusion as that of George Fox, the founder of the 
 Quakers, namel}-, that episcopal ordination was not 
 necessary to constitute a minister of the gospel, and 
 that every Christian who felt he had received a divine 
 call had a right to i^reach the gospel without human 
 appointment. 
 
 But the principal founder of the "Brethren," as a 
 select sect, was a clergyman who had been a barrister, 
 by name Darby. He first organized a congregation in 
 a large auction-room in Dublin, under the name of 
 "Separatists." He afterwards came to England, and 
 
132 The Church of England and 
 
 went about as an independent preacher, organizing small 
 societies on the strictest Calvinistic principles for the 
 promotion of personal holiness of life. These societies 
 soon developed into congregations, which claim to be 
 independent of all other religious communions, and 
 maintain that true Christianity is only to be found 
 amongst themselves. 
 
 As their object is to form a stricter community, 
 separated from the world, thc\- protest alike against 
 all the sects. They consider the Church of England 
 too lax and latitudinarian, as designed in theory to 
 embrace within its pale the entire population of the 
 country. This they hold is an unholy commingling of 
 believers and unbelievers, an endeavour to join Christ 
 with Belial. They consider all the dissenting commu- 
 nions too sectarian and limited, because, by reason of 
 their various tests of doctrine and discipline, they ex- 
 clude from their communion many who are clearly and 
 undoubtedl}- true members of the universal Church of 
 Christ. 
 
 2. The Brethren hold, (i) that all who arc sanctified 
 are so perfect that there is no room for confession of 
 sin ; (2) that because we {i.e. the Brethren) are saved, 
 it is wrong to ask God to " make speed to save us ; " 
 (3) that because God " hath made us " {i.c. the Brethren) 
 " meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints 
 in light," it is wrong to pray in the words of the Tc Deum, 
 " make them to be numbered with Thy saints." This 
 latter objection, as grounded on the words of the Am- 
 brosian hymn, is the result of a mistake (so it is said) 
 in some of the copies. The word in the Latin version 
 
other RcligioiLS Comnmnions. 
 
 133 
 
 is " nuincrari " (" to be rewarded "). This was altered, 
 carelessly, it is supposed, into niuncmri" ("to be 
 numbered "). The Brethren hold further, (4) that as 
 God " hath granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto 
 life," it is wrong" to pray for repentance ; and (5) that 
 it is superfluous to pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit, 
 since He has been already given. 
 
 All these peculiar tenets spring from the confu- 
 sion of thought which mingles, in the work of man's 
 salvation, the objective ( that which is done for and out- 
 side of us) with the subjective (that which is done by 
 and within us). We may say briefly that the received 
 doctrine of the Church supplies us with the answers to 
 these objections. The Church teaches that all will 
 not be saved alt/ioui^h Christ died for all, and yet that 
 all may be saved because Christ died for all. It should 
 be noticed that in nearly all disputes in which the terms 
 "saved" and "salvation" form the central point, they 
 are used in two dificrcnt senses. Sometimes they are 
 merely used to mean " the being put into a state of or 
 for salvation," and sometimes they arc used of a salva- 
 tion which extends beyond this life. The Church, again, 
 teaches that God gives sufficient grace to each one who 
 is placed by baptism in " a state of salvation," but that 
 grace does not destroy the free-will of each. " Sanctifi- 
 cation, moreover, is not a perfected but a progressive 
 act, day by day through God's grace increasing ; and 
 the more we are sanctified the more humble we become, 
 and the more ready to pray for an increase of grace." 
 It is the error of the Brethren that the state of grace, 
 being perfected in them, cannot increase. 
 
134 
 
 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 The Brethren arc strong Predestinarians (that is, that 
 God foreknows and foreordains those who are to inherit 
 everlasting Hfe and those who are to go away into ever- 
 lasting death). They are also Millenarians in the unor- 
 thodox sense of that term (that is, the}- hold the doctrine 
 of a INIillenium or reign of Christ for a thousand years 
 of earthly enjoyment). They believe themselves to be 
 " the assembly of God," not meeting together by human 
 will, but " gathered to Jesus by the Holy Ghost." They 
 profess to take the New Testament as their rule of life 
 and discipline, just as every other sect does, but inter- 
 preted in accordance with prc-conceived theories. The 
 main points of positive doctrine held by the Brethren 
 are that " the Lord is at hand,'" and that " the Holy 
 Ghost is the present sole and sufficient Sovereign in the 
 Church during our Lord's absence." 
 
 They hold that every " brother " and "sister" has a 
 full right to " prophesy " or preach whenever moved by 
 the Spirit. This the Brethren call the " many-men 
 ministry" in distinction from the "one-man ministry." 
 They are a widely spread and, they say, an increasing 
 sect ; but thej- have not been free from their little 
 schisms and secessions, not unallo}-ed with bitterness 
 of feeling and words of reproach. They have even 
 proceeded to the extreme course of excommunicating 
 one another, and they are now divided into three 
 sections: (i) the heretics {i.e. the followers of Mr. 
 Newton at Plymouth, who was held to have taught 
 objectionable opinions, resembling those of Mr. Irving, 
 on the human nature of our Lord) ; (2) those who 
 hold no communion either with the heretics or their 
 
other Religions Comiminions. 135 
 
 friends, lest they should contract " a taint ; " (3) those 
 who hold communion with the friends, but not with the 
 heretics. The originators of the Evangelical Alliance 
 evidently regarded the Brethren as a dangerous sect, 
 and one not to be invited to join a Protestant union, for 
 they classed them with Infidels, Papists, and Puseyites. 
 
 "The rise of Plymouthism," says Bishop Forbes, 
 "may be traced (i) to the worldly lives of those 
 who profess the doctrines of the Church, and (2) to 
 the neglect of preaching the counsels of perfection. 
 God scourges His elect by those exaggerations of sup- 
 pressed truth and neglected practices which constitute 
 the peculiarity of the Brethren." 
 
 IV. The system which is known as Positivism owes 
 its origin to the writings of Auguste Comte (1797- 
 1857). The name by which this philosophical and 
 religious system is known was derived from the classifica- 
 tion by Comte of all moral and intellectual development 
 under the three divisions of Theological or Supernatural, 
 Metaphysical and Positive. Comte professed to evolve 
 no new principle. He applied Bacon's Inductive method 
 to the entire group of sciences. From Hume he derived 
 his repudiation of any necessary relation between cause 
 and effect, and his substitution of the theory of antece- 
 dents and consequents. From Kant he derived his 
 theor}- of our ignorance of real substances and real 
 causes. Positive philosophy includes science in all its 
 relations, since the same method applies to all in- 
 vestigations. All science passes through three stages, 
 (i) The Theological or Supernatural, in w^hich the mind 
 seeks for causes, aspires to know the essence of things, 
 
136 The Clmrch of England and 
 
 and investigates the Why. In its less developed state 
 it is the Fetichism (the lowest form of superstition — 
 fetisso, a wooden idol) of the untutored savage, thence it 
 passes into the Polytheism of the refined and civilized 
 Pagan, and the Monotheism of Judaism, Mohammed- 
 anism and Christianity. (2) The Metaphysical, in which 
 supernatural agencies give place to abstract forces, 
 which are supposed to be capable of producing all phe- 
 nomena. (3) The Positive, in which the mind restricts 
 itself to the discovery of the laws of phenomena ; that is, 
 their invariable relations of succession and resemblance, 
 and investigates the How. Each of the three s)'stems 
 is radically opposed to, and exclusive of the others. 
 " The Positive Philosophy is avowedly founded on the 
 objective or external sources of knowledge arising from 
 the world outside of us, to the practical exclusion of the 
 subjective, or that which arises from the reflex contem- 
 plation by the human mind of its own nature and 
 operations." 
 
 It asserts that nothing is to be accepted as truth 
 which can merely be proved to be the highest probability, 
 but only that which can be positively demonstrated. 
 " The primary object of Positivism," says Comte, " is 
 twofold ; to generalize our scientific conceptions, and to 
 systematize the art of social life. These are but two 
 aspects of one and the same problem." The term itself, 
 Positivism, implies that which is certain, precise, useful, 
 and real. But it possesses another attribute. It is rela- 
 tive as opposed to that which is absolute. It condenses 
 into one single expressive form the highest attributes of 
 human wisdom. 
 
other Religious Concniimions. 
 
 137 
 
 But it is as Positivism professes to be a religion with 
 its supreme object of worship, its priesthood, and its 
 creed, that it engages our attention on the present occa- 
 sion. ReHgion, as defined by Comte, is not this or that 
 form of Creed, but the harmony proper to human exist- 
 ence. The Positive rehgion claims superiority over all 
 other forms as a religion of demonstration, and as the 
 only system which is reconcilable with high intellectual 
 development. The subjective or moral side of its reli- 
 gion is Sociology, the science of society. Its objective 
 or intellectual side is the great collective life of Humanity. 
 This is the Supreme Being {Ic Grand Eire) who mani- 
 fests to the fullest extent all the highest attributes of 
 life. This Supreme Being, who is the object of worship 
 in the Present, is not immutable any more than it is 
 absolute. Its nature is relative, and as such it is emi- 
 nently capable of growth. It is the most vital of all 
 living beings known to us. It is the only one we can 
 know and worship. It differs in this respect from the 
 Supreme Being (God) of the Past, whose existence was 
 passive, except when interrupted by acts of arbitrary and 
 unintelligible volition. This Religion of Humanity has 
 its order of worship in what it calls " The New Church." 
 Its festivals are of two kinds, corresponding to the two 
 essential aspects of Humanity ; the first illustrating her 
 Existence, the second her Action. In the static festivals, 
 social Order and the feeling of Solidarity, or union with 
 the Present, are illustrated. They represent Morality. 
 In the dynamic festivals, social Progress and Continuitj', 
 or union with the Past, are illustrated. They represent 
 History. The object of the Positive worship is to bring 
 
138 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 the personal under the control of the social instincts. 
 The most universal and the most solemn of these Festi- 
 vals is held at the beginning of the new year, thus con- 
 secrating the onl)- custom which still remains in general 
 use to relieve the prosaic dulness of modern life. It is 
 called the Feast of Humanit}-, and it celebrates the most 
 comprehensive of all unions. The last day of the year 
 is devoted to the worship of the dead, and the com- 
 memoration of their active service in life. In every week 
 of the year, in the " Positivist Kalendar," some new- 
 aspect of Order or Progress is held up to public venera- 
 tion, and in each the link connecting public and private 
 worship will be found in the adoration of Woman. For 
 the object of Positive worship cannot be the unseen 
 abstract idea of Humanity. It must be something well 
 known to the intellect, and must have a warm life in the 
 affections. 
 
 The wife, the mother, the daughter, representing in a 
 concrete form the abstract ideas of present, past, and 
 future, are the only fitting objects of Positive adoration. 
 They arc our guardian angels. If these are denied to 
 any one, or if the}- are unworthy objects, any other type 
 of womanhood may be substituted. The Positive religion 
 has its hierarchy or priesthood. There is the supreme 
 Pontiff, and there is the speculative class, or philosophers. 
 To the Positive priesthood is assigned the duty of con- 
 vincing and persuading the rich capitalists who are the 
 temporal chiefs of modern society, in case they neglect 
 their duty. Should this course fail, the priesthood may 
 pronounce a formal condemnation of their conduct, 
 which is to be ratified by the working classes and the 
 
other Religions Commiinions. 139 
 
 women, and man)- even proceed to the extreme length 
 of social excommunication. 
 
 Widely different as arc their circumstances and the 
 means they employ, the adherents of the Positive religion 
 desire to regard themselves as the successors of the great 
 men who conducted the progressive movement of 
 Catholicism (Christianity). But they do not omit to 
 recognize how largely Positivism gains by comparison 
 Avith Christianity. P'or the whole effect of the Positivist 
 worship and its moral law is to make men feel clearly 
 how far superior in every respect is the Love of Humanity 
 to the Love of God. To love Humanity may be truly 
 said to constitute the whole duty of man. To live for 
 others {altriiisui — i'ivc pour altmi) is the highest happi- 
 ness. To " love our neighbours as ourselves," is Egotism. 
 Self-love, in the Positive system, is regarded as the great 
 infirmity of our nature. We must not love ourselves at 
 all, but aim at the highest perfection by bestowing all 
 our love upon others. To live in others is, in the true 
 sense of the word, life. " Love is our principle ; Oi'der 
 our basis ; Progress our end." 
 
 I have been able only to give a brief sketch of 
 this new religion, and I have, for the most part, let 
 Comte inform us in his own words respecting its chief 
 features. It may occur to us to ask. What is the 
 Humanity which we are invited to worship If it is an 
 abstract unsubstantial idea, the experience of mankind 
 does not warrant the probability of a widely-.sprcad 
 enthusiasm on behalf of such an object of worship. 
 If it is man in his collective capacity, as embracing all 
 human beings. man\- of these will scarcely commend 
 
1 40 The CJmrch of Englaiid and 
 
 themselves to ordinary devout minds as supreme objects 
 of worship and adoration. It would be an insult to the 
 moral sense to propose it. Perhaps Comte felt this diffi- 
 culty when he offered, for the adoration of his followers, 
 Woman as the idolized ideal. lie refers to the accept- 
 ance of the worship of Woman as the first step towards 
 the worship of Humanity, in the adoration which has 
 been offered to the Virgin mother of our Lord in the 
 Roman communion, since the twelfth century — the 
 Virgin becoming gradually regarded as a personification 
 of Humanity. It may not be admitted by the adherents 
 of the Positive religion, but to those who continue to 
 worship " the sublime Deity of Monotheism," it certainly 
 seems that the worship of Humanity, in its practical 
 issue, is nothing else than a form of sensuous idolatry. 
 An apostle has bidden us Christians Honour zW men" 
 {i.e. the human race), and if wc obey that royal law we 
 shall do well. The honour of humanity will not lose 
 any of its distinctive claims upon our regard because it 
 is irrevocably joined in holy bonds with the injunction 
 to " fear {i.e. reverence) God." Nor should we forget that, 
 long before the writings of Comte were given to the 
 world, it was enlightened by the doctrine of the Apostle 
 of Love, who, in the sweetest simplicity of easy language, 
 has taught us a profound truth of social and religious 
 life. " This commandment have we from God, that he 
 who loveth God love his brother also." 
 
othej' Religions Communions. 141 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE ROMANISTS. 
 
 In asking your attention to what I may have to say 
 respecting the relative position of the Roman com- 
 munion in this country towards the Church of England, 
 I shall adhere to the historical method which I have 
 adopted in the previous lectures, when treating of the 
 various Protestant religious communions. After the 
 accession of Queen Elizabeth (1558), about two per 
 cent, only of the clergy of the Church of England 
 refused to conform to the Book of Common Prayer 
 issued (with a few verbal alterations from the first Prayer- 
 Book, and in a spirit of comprehension), in her reign, and 
 resigned their cures. The Pope (Pius IV., 1560-65) 
 had agreed to accept and authorize this book without 
 any change as " authentic and not repugnant to truth," 
 on condition that the queen would receive it as from 
 himself and acknowledge his supremacy. The queen, 
 however, declined to acquiesce in this proposal, and the 
 succeeding Pope (Pius V., 1 566-1 572) exercised the 
 right which had been assumed by some of his predeces- 
 sors, and resisted by the English people, of excommuni- 
 cating the sovereign, and absolving those of her subjects 
 
142 
 
 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 who thought fit to avail themselves of the plea, from 
 their lawful allegiance. From the time of the issue of 
 this papal bull or decree may be dated the formation 
 of the Romanists as a separate religious communion in 
 England. Once more the crucial question of the 
 supremacy of the Pope in this realm was raised by 
 the Roman Pontiff himself. Once more the bull of 
 excommunication was issued. 
 
 In the reigns of former sovereigns, the nation had 
 been content silently to suffer, because it was not strong 
 enough to resist the power, more temporal than spiritual, 
 of the popes. The fear of foreign invasion or civil strife 
 was more intense than the fear of spiritual penalties. 
 But as the nation became more at unity in itself, and 
 more reliant on the stability of its own resources to 
 resist invasion, or on the absolute power of its sove- 
 reign head, the threats of excommunication were 
 treated with a lighter heart. What Elizabeth feared 
 was not any loss to herself or her people, by the bull of 
 excommunication, of the spiritual consolations of religion, 
 for the ordinances of the Church continued to be duly 
 administered ; she feared lest a section of her subjects, 
 in obedience to the commands of one who claimed not 
 only to be Bishop of Rome, but a temporal sovereign 
 also, should plot against her life, and make England the 
 appanage of a foreign crown. The question of the papal 
 supremacy is, in fact, the key to the entire historical 
 position as between the Roman communion in England 
 and the English Church. Has the ]3ishop of Rome any 
 [constitutional] jurisdiction in this realm Just as in 
 the case of the original Independents and Baptists, so 
 
other Religious Comnmnions. 143 
 
 in the case of the Romanists ; there was in their sepa- 
 ration from the Church of England a pohtical as well 
 as a rcHgious element. The question of the supremacy 
 and jurisdiction of the Pope was by no means new to 
 the England of the days of Elizabeth. It was a question 
 which had aroused the antipathy of the nation in much 
 earlier times. It was a question which Henry VIII. and 
 his Parliament had practically settled in the Act of 
 Supremacy and in other Acts passed in his reign. It is 
 a favourite commonplace with Roman controversialists 
 that Henry, not having been able to obtain the sanction 
 of the Pope to his determination to be divorced from 
 his wife, Queen Katharine, because she stood in the way 
 of his intended union with Anne Boleyn, said, in effect, 
 " I will be the successor of Peter. I will be pope as well 
 as king in this realm of England." And so he threw off 
 his allegiance and the allegiance of his kingdom to the 
 Pope. As to the question of the divorce of the king, 
 which is said to have been the cause of the overthrow 
 of the papal supremacy in England, it should be borne 
 in mind (i) that the dispensation to allow the king, 
 for political reasons, to intermarry with his deceased 
 brother's wife had been granted by one Pope (Julius 
 II.), and that the grant of a dispensation implied that 
 the marriage, on other grounds, was held to be 
 irregular ; and (2) that another Pope (Clement VII.) 
 had gone so far as to send Cardinal Campeggio to open, 
 in company with Cardinal W'olsey, a commission of 
 inquiry into the legality of the king's marriage. Wolsey, 
 too, used every effort, again for political reasons, to 
 promote and encourage the divorce, and he seems to 
 
144 The Church of England and 
 
 have pledged his word to the king that it should be 
 decreed. But the Pope was at this time a prisoner at 
 Avignon, and the Emperor Ferdinand supported the 
 cause of his aunt, Queen Katharine. So the cause was 
 indefinitely postponed. It is clear that one of the popes 
 was as ready, if even he was unable, to disannul the 
 marriage as another had been to allov.- it. It was 
 doubtless in consequence of the vacillation of the 
 Pope and the inability of Wolsey to fulfil his pledged 
 word that Henry, in his own absolute manner, 
 took advantage of what he had ascertained to be the 
 feeling of the nation on the question of papal supre- 
 macy. He merely carried out, not certainly without 
 reference to his own purposes, Avhat was already in 
 preparation in the course of events. Even Henr}-, 
 arbitrary as he was in the sway of his sovereignty, 
 although discreeth- exercised through the constitutional 
 enactments of his Parliament, would not have ventured 
 to break with the Pope on a mere personal question if, 
 to use the phrase of Napoleon respecting a different 
 event, " the pear had not been ripe enough for the 
 plucking." There were some good and true men, such 
 as Bishop Fisher, Sir Thomas More, and the Carthusian 
 monks, who, without ignoring the evils of which the 
 papal supremacy had been aforetime the cause, could 
 not conscientiously accept the Tudor view of the royal 
 supremacy. On the other hand, the Convocation of 
 the clergy, the Houses of Parliament, the ancient 
 Universities, and even many of the monastic houses, all 
 in visible communion with the Roman Church, con- 
 curred in taking advantage of the present fitting oppor- 
 
othe7' Religious Communions. 145 
 
 tunity to renounce and repudiate the suprenaacy and 
 jurisdiction of the Pope. Englishmen knew full well, 
 from unimpeachable records, the struggles of their fore- 
 fathers against the thraldom now of a foreign poten- 
 tate, now of their own sovereign at foreign dictation. 
 One Pope (Alexander III.) had annulled the Constitu- 
 tions of Clarendon. Another (Innocent III.) had put the 
 kingdom under an interdict, so that " the church bells 
 were silent and the dead lay unburied on the ground." 
 He had also annulled the provisions of the Great Charter. 
 Other popes demanded a tithe of the whole kingdom, 
 and filled English benefices with Italian priests who 
 seldom or never resided, and even with Italian boys. 
 This despotic exercise of a supremacy, which had never 
 been really acknowledged by the nation, led to the 
 passing of such Acts as (i) " The Statute of Provisors " 
 (Edward III., 135 1), which barred the claim of the Pope 
 to dispose of English benefices, and abolished the 
 payments of firstfruits (the first year's income of all 
 vacated benefices) to the Pope, and (2) " The Statutes 
 of Praemunire" (Richard II., 1393) which prohibited 
 the issue of papal bulls in England. The abolition of 
 the papal supremacy, which was practically effected by 
 the passing of the statutes (of which mention has been 
 made) in the reign of Henry VIII., was the historical 
 result of the passing of these prior statutes. They were 
 only in an indirect manner connected with the king's 
 divorce. There was no desire, however, on the part of 
 the nation to break with the continuity of Church order 
 in spiritual matters. There was no attempt made to 
 draw an ineffaceable line .between an old Church and 
 
 L 
 
1 46 The CJmrcJi of England and 
 
 a new. A few alterations were proposed, chiefly in the 
 direction of the curtailment of medic'eval corruptions and 
 legends, and the adoption of the English tongue in the 
 saying of divine service ; but, beyond this, no impor- 
 tant change in doctrine or ritual was introduced. There 
 is no record, which has seen or is likely ever to see the 
 daylight, of the creation of a new Church of England 
 forced on the people of England by Act of Parliament. 
 
 The breach which was effected in the reign of 
 Henry VIII. was not with the Church of Rome, but with 
 the Roman Court {Curia). It was like a suspension of 
 diplomatic relations between the courts of two sovereigns. 
 And it should be added, in proof of the statement, that 
 this breaking off of the political connection, involved 
 in ceasing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, 
 was assented to b}' the Convocation of the provinces of 
 Canterbury and York, under the guidance, and with the 
 consent of such bishops as Gardiner, Bonner, and 
 Warham, men who were daily using the Sarum Missal, 
 and held firmly to what some would call Roman and 
 others Catholic doctrine. 
 
 I have dealt thus briefly, as the occasion only admits, 
 with the historical aspect of this question of the papal 
 supremacy in England, since it is important to our 
 position to show that the Church of England continues 
 to be the same Church in the succession of the episco- 
 pate and priesthood, and in its spiritual government, its 
 discipline, doctrine, and ritual. Although some altera- 
 tions were made in the liturg}' and in certain doctrinal 
 standards in the reign of Edward VI., and even such 
 a phrase was inserted in the Litany as " From the Bishop 
 
other Religiozis Communions. 147 
 
 of Rome and all his detestable enormities, good Lord, 
 deliver us," the first Prayer-book in English was very 
 widely accepted. On the accession of Queen Mary, 
 England was " reconciled," as it was called, " to the 
 Roman see ; " but the persecutions during her short 
 reign, and the foreign influence of Spain in supporting 
 the Roman as opposed to the national party, once more 
 alienated the people. During the first two years of 
 Elizabeth's reign, this foreign influence gradually dimin- 
 ished, and the queen's policy of " comprehension " might 
 have been successful had it not been for the animosity 
 of the Puritans on the one hand, and the action of the 
 Pope on the other. Before the bull was issued by the 
 Pope (Pius V.) to excommunicate and depose the queen, 
 and curse those of her subjects who should obey her, it 
 is recorded in the State Papers, and in the Lord Chief 
 Justice Coke's charge at Norwich, that there were no 
 Recusants {i.e. Romanists who refused to conform) in 
 England. During the first ten years of the queen's reign, 
 all came to church to the same divine service we now 
 use ; but after the issue of the papal decree, " the Romish 
 English Catholics," as Coke calls them, " refused to 
 assemble in our churches or join with us in public 
 service, not for conscience of anything there done, but 
 because the Pope had excommunicated the queen." 
 But although the Romanizing party had separated 
 themselves from communion with the Church of Eng- 
 land, they were not organized into a sect until about 
 the year 1581, when the Jesuits under Campion and 
 Persons came " from beyond the seas," and laid the 
 foundation of a new Church in England, in communion 
 
148 
 
 The Church of England a?id 
 
 Avith, and in absolute dependence upon the Bishop of 
 Rome. From this time a foreign element of ecclesiasti- 
 cal polity derived from Rome, just as a foreign element 
 derived from Geneva and Holland, hindered the spiritual 
 progress of the Church of England. 
 
 The old Marian party, which had come out from 
 within the Church, was nearly extinguished, and a 
 foreign religious and now partly organized communion, 
 which never had any connection with the Church of 
 England, was taking its place. The Marian episcopate, 
 too, was rapidly dying out, and in the year 1563, there 
 were only eight survivors. The last survivor was Watson, 
 ex-Bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1584. Xo attempt 
 seems to have been made, or, if made, it was soon 
 abandoned, to establish in England a separate episcopate 
 for this foreign communion. Its priesthood came from 
 the " seminaries " or colleges which William Allen, 
 formerly Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, and after- 
 wards Archbishop of Mechlin, founded on the Continent. 
 
 The first of these seminaries was founded at Douay, 
 in 1 568 ; thence it was transferred to Rheims, and at 
 the first French Revolution to Ware, in Hertfordshire. 
 ' The college was originally dedicated to Sl Thomas of 
 Canterbur}'-, but is now known as St. Edmund's College. 
 Other seminaries were established at Rome, Paris, and 
 other towns on the Continent, and dispensations from 
 spiritual censures were granted by the Pope to those 
 laymen who held abbey lands, upon their contributing 
 to the support of these " English " colleges. This new 
 foreign " English Mission " made no attempt to represent 
 the old Church of England, which a modem writer 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 149 
 
 thinks fit to call the "Anglican schism." Its professed 
 object at first, as it is still its professed object, was to 
 labour for the reconversion of England to the (Roman) 
 Catholic faith, and to effect what is called "a reconciliation 
 of the Church and nation with the holy see." The young 
 men who were educated at the foreign seminaries for 
 mission-work in England were taught that the light of 
 Christianity was extinguished, and that they were to 
 go forth, under the benediction of the successor of 
 Peter and the banner of the Cross, to reconquer for 
 Christ and His apostolic vicar, in the spirit and power 
 of the great Augustin and his band of monks, the not 
 " almost Christian " but almost heathen English. 
 " Scarcely anything else," it was said, " was talked of 
 in Italy but this combat of England." 
 
 For many years this " mission " was presided over 
 by arch-priests, and subsequently by four vicars-apos- 
 tolic, or deputy-bishops, of whom each received in the 
 reign of James II. i^iooo a year from the Exchequer. 
 In 1688, the Pope (Innocent XI.) divided England into 
 four districts. In 1840, these districts were subdivided 
 by Pope Gregory XVI. into eight. The vicars-apostolic 
 who were appointed to these districts were consecrated 
 as bishops in partibus mfidelium (in the countries of 
 the heathen), and did not derive their titles from Eng- 
 lish centres. But in 1850 Pope Pius IX., with a view 
 to " provide for the prosperity and increase of the 
 Catholic religion in the kingdom of England," by letters 
 apostolic divided England into thirteen dioceses. By 
 the provisions of the " Roman Catholic Emancipation 
 or Relief Bill " the bishops nominated by the Pope were 
 
150 The Church of England and 
 
 forbidden to assume the ecclesiastical title of any already- 
 existing see. So the names of cities or towns, as West- 
 minster, Beverley, Birmingham, and others, were adopted 
 to evade the law and secure the position. 
 
 Cardinal Wiseman was the first titular Archbishop 
 of Westminster. He had been an active promoter of 
 the scheme, and on its receiving the assent of the Pope, 
 he sent his first pastoral to England from "the Flami- 
 nian Gate," in which he spoke of " Catholic England 
 as restored to its orbit around the centre of unity, the 
 source of jurisdiction and of light." But the establish- 
 ment of this Anglo-Roman episcopate is what Cardinal 
 Manning called it, when he was Archdeacon of Chichester, 
 " an act of schism." For there is no proof that the 
 Church of England has apostatized from the faith, or 
 embodied in its formularies any tenets which have been 
 adjudged heretical by the voice of the undivided Church. 
 Nor has the English episcopate died out so as to require 
 revival or renewal. If the Roman communion in Eng- 
 land, like that of the Greek Church and the Church of 
 England in continental towns, offered its ministrations 
 to those foreigners who had been brought up within its 
 pale, or to those English people who have what they 
 consider an hereditary claim upon them, the plea for 
 religious toleration would be as strong and as unanswer- 
 able in its case as in that of every other religious com- 
 munion. But the professed object of the Roman Church 
 is to reconvert England to the (Roman) Catholic faith. 
 To do this it must be aggressive in its every movement. 
 It must attack the validity of the orders conferred by 
 the Anglican episcopate, a question I shall hope to 
 
other Religious Communions. 151 
 
 consider in a future lecture. It must deny or disparage 
 the jurisdiction of this episcopate in order to defend the 
 jurisdiction of its own of foreign growth. It must dis- 
 own the grace of the orders, and the efficacy of the 
 Sacraments as administered in the AngHcan Church. It 
 must, above all, claim to be the one true Church out of 
 which there is no being in a state of salvation here, or 
 being sure of salvation hereafter. It must insist that 
 one mark of a true Church is communion with Rome, the 
 centre of unity, where, it is said, is the chair of Peter, 
 the vicar of Christ. This is, once more, the doctrine 
 of the supremacy of the Pope. Only, for the present, the 
 spiritual supremacy of the successor of Peter is alone 
 relied upon as establishing a claim to our allegiance. 
 
 II. Let us now, in the next place, investigate this 
 claim by the light which history sheds upon it, unless 
 an appeal to history be still held to be " a treason." 
 The tenet or doctrine of the supremacy of the Pope, 
 which, as we have seen, is the key to the whole position, 
 is one of very gradual growth. It grew out of the fact 
 that Rome was the splendid capital of a vast empire, 
 and the seat of the most numerous and wealthy com- 
 munity of Christians. The bishop of such a city would 
 be sure, from the advantages of his position, to exercise 
 a powerful spiritual influence in Christendom, more espe- 
 cially in the West ; and when the empire was rapidly 
 declining, and the seat of the empire was removed to 
 New Rome (Constantinople, the city of Constantine), 
 he would gradually acquire the additional influence 
 which the assumption of the temporal power would 
 confer. But this is far too prosaic and commonplace, 
 
152 The Church of England and 
 
 not to say historical, an origin for the defenders of the 
 papal assumptions. One of the essential conditions of 
 salvation is held by Romanists to be communion with 
 the Pope, not because he is assumed to be the successor 
 of bishops of the imperial city, but because he and they 
 are spiritually the lineal descendants in an unbroken suc- 
 cession (so it is maintained) of the Apostle Peter, the first 
 Pope, vicar of Christ, and supreme head of the Church 
 on earth. There is only one difficulty in accepting the 
 truth of this imposing position. It is the difficulty of 
 producing trustworthy evidence. It cannot be proved 
 that St. Peter resided at Rome for twenty-five years, 
 although it is fairly probable that he may have visited 
 it shortly before his death. It cannot be proved that 
 he was ever Bishop of Rome, or that he appointed or 
 consecrated any presbyter to succeed himself as bishop. 
 The legend of which St. Peter has been constituted 
 the apostolic centre is to be traced to the " Clementine 
 Homilies," and the " Recognitions," which are practi- 
 cally a replica reproduction of the homilies. But these 
 are both fictitious works, " heretical religious novels," 
 the production of Ebionite heretics at the end of the 
 second century, and written with the scarcely disguised 
 purpose of elevating St. Peter, the apostle of the Cir- 
 cumcision (the Jews), above St. Paul, the apostle of 
 the Uncircumcision (the Gentiles). But this imposing 
 claim of what is called the Petrine succession is not 
 only derived from fictitious sources ; it is based upon 
 forgeries, and interpolations into the text of the 
 writings of the fathers. A few instances must suffice, 
 (i) Irenseus, in the second century, is quoted as saying. 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 153 
 
 " It is necessary that all depend on the Church of Rome 
 as on a well-spring or head." No such words are to 
 be found in any authentic copy of the writings of 
 this Father. (2) Cyprian, in the third century, one of 
 the chief authorities against the assumptions of the 
 Bishop of Rome, has been made to say in his treatise 
 on " The unity of the Church," " Upon Peter Christ 
 builds His Church, and the primacy is given to Peter 
 that it might be shown that the Church is one. He 
 who forsakes the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church 
 is built, can he trust that he is in the Church .'' " This 
 passage, which first appears in a letter from Pope 
 Pelagius II. (590) to the Bishops of Istria, is not to 
 be found in any copy of Cyprian's works before 1563, 
 when it was inserted by order of the papal censors. (3) 
 Augustine, in the fourth century, is incessantly quoted 
 as having said, " Rome has spoken ; the cause is at an 
 end " {Roma locnta est, catisa finita est). Augustine 
 was writing on the Pelagian question concerning man's 
 free will, and what he said was this : " The results of 
 two councils on this matter have been sent to the apos- 
 tolic see, and letters were received in reply. The cause 
 is at an end ; would that the error may one day end " 
 (Sermon cxxxi.). 
 
 The decrees of councils have also undergone a 
 similar process of revision. It was stated at a council 
 of the African Church, held at Carthage (419), that 
 a canon of the first general council held at Nicaea 
 (325) had decreed that all appeals from the bishop 
 should be carried to Rome. The council of Nicaea had 
 decreed nothing of the kind. A canon of the local 
 
1 54 The Church of England and 
 
 synod of Sardica (347), which laid the foundation of 
 Roman supremacy, was palmed off on the unsuspecting 
 African Church. Even that canon, which more than 
 one succeeding pope used to support the claim of the 
 papacy, only permitted appellate jurisdiction to Pope 
 Julius by name, and not to the Bishop of Rome. In 
 the middle of the ninth century came the greatest of 
 all the papal forgeries — the Pseudo-Isidore, or False 
 Decretals. They were said to have been written by 
 Clement and Anacletus, the second and third bishops 
 of Rome. They were really fabricated by an unknown 
 forger in Western Gaul, about the year 845. They con- 
 tain a collection of many so-called decrees and official 
 letters of popes and councils on points of doctrine and 
 discipline intended to increase the papal authority. 
 They make St. Peter say, " not even among the apostles 
 was there equality, but one was set over all." They 
 make Clement call St. Peter " prince of the apostles." 
 They make Calixtus say that " the head of the Church 
 is the Roman Church." They contain the forgery of 
 the famous "donation of Constantine," which makes it 
 appear that the donation of the large tract of Lom- 
 bardy to the papal states, made by Pepin and Charle- 
 magne, was only the return of a gift taken away by 
 the Lombards. Pope Nicolas I., an ambitious and 
 thoroughly unscrupulous pontiff, who was the first to 
 use these forgeries in revolutionizing the Church, knew 
 that not one of the alleged decrees was to be found in the 
 Roman archives. Although they have been stigmatized 
 as forgeries even by such writers as Baronius and Bellar- 
 mine, they are still quoted as if they were genuine in 
 
other Religious CofJtimmions. 155 
 
 Liguori's "Moral Theology," the chief text-book on papal 
 infallibility, which is in the hands of every Roman priest 
 
 The Greek Catena is second only to the False De- 
 cretals in the extent and audacity of its untruthfulness. 
 It is the forgery of a mendicant friar of about 1261. 
 The two chief tenets which are laid down in this forgery 
 are — (i) That the pope is the infallible teacher of the 
 whole world ; and (2) that he is the absolute monarch 
 of the Church. 
 
 I have dwelt at some length on the modes which 
 have been adopted to establish the doctrine of the 
 " papal supremacy," because, as I have said, it is at the 
 root of the whole question, as between the Church of 
 Rome and the Church of England. It would not be 
 impossible, if it were ever desired, to offer mutual ex- 
 planations on points of doctrine, and there are neces- 
 sarily many essential articles of faith and religion which 
 are held in common. But such fictions or forgeries, as 
 I have mentioned, stand in the way of explanations. 
 Two blacks will not make one white. The Church of 
 Rome, however, knows nothing of compromise. She can- 
 not entertain proposals for union. Her demand is, in no 
 equivocal terms, for submission, on the ground that that 
 Church is alone the one true Church of Christ on earth, 
 and that she derives the authority of her supremacy 
 from Peter, as Peter received his authority from our 
 Lord. Certainly, if the supremacy of the Pope over the 
 whole world (eventually) as its civil and ecclesiastical 
 ruler, as the vicegerent and vicar of Christ on earth, and 
 successor of Peter — for this is what it comes to— can be 
 proved on the most unimpeachable evidence to have 
 
156 The Church of England and 
 
 been held always and everywhere from the first founda- 
 tion of the Christian Church, and if can be shown that 
 the credentials for this world-wide supremacy are scru- 
 pulously genuine, it would become a serious question, 
 notwithstanding our present contention that the intrusion 
 of a Roman episcopate into England is an act of schism, 
 whether we ought not, for the sake of that outward as 
 well as inner unity for which our Saviour so earnestly 
 prayed, to reconsider our position. But if it can be 
 shown, as a matter of fact, irrespective of sentiment, 
 that this stupendous claim to our allegiance is based on 
 a series of forgeries and fictions and guesses, we may 
 rest content with our lot, certain that we should lose 
 much more than we could possibly gain. It is a power- 
 ful writer of the Roman communion, a French priest 
 (Pere Gratry), who said, concerning the papal supremacy, 
 " It is a question utterly gangrened with fraud." It is 
 true that he afterwards wished to " efface " what he had 
 said, but his testimony is true nevertheless. 
 
 Romanists rest the whole of their case on the Pope 
 singly in his double character of heir of St. Peter and 
 first Patriarch of Christendom. But it is certain, by 
 Roman canon law that the descent from St. Peter has 
 been entirely broken no fewer than four times over, 
 during the long gaps in the succession of the tenth, 
 eleventh, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. And it is 
 also certain, by the same canon law, that the papal 
 chair has been legally and ecclesiastically vacant ever 
 since 1492, so that, even leaving the failure of the heir- 
 ship to St. Peter's divine privilege out of account, there 
 has been no pope at all since that time as Bishop of 
 
other Religious Communions. 157 
 
 Rome. This is the Roman situation at the present 
 time. It is difficult to conceive a more serious complica- 
 tion. The Roman Church has insisted on having a 
 visible and human head of the Church, instead of being 
 contented with the Holy Spirit as the divine " Vicar of 
 Christ," and Romanists have suffered accordingly by 
 losing the substitute set up in this wise by themselves, 
 even while still thinking that they are in full possession 
 of it. The proverb says that " Catholicism is the 
 strength of Romanism, but that Romanism is the weak- 
 ness of Catholicism." 
 
 We have already heard attributed to St. Augustine 
 what he did not say ; let us now hear what he did say : 
 " We who are Christians do not put our faith in Peter, 
 but in Him in whom Peter himself believed — in the 
 Christ, Peter's Master and Lord." 
 
The Church of England and 
 
 LECTURE IX. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND — ITS SPIRITUAL 
 CONTINUITY. 
 
 I PROPOSE, in the remaining lectures of this series, to 
 put before you some facts respecting the history and con- 
 stitution of the Church of England. In endeavouring to 
 carry out this proposal, I am conscious of opening not 
 merely one large volume, but many volumes of a large 
 work, and I feel how difficult it will be to condense these 
 volumes without doing an injustice to the subject, or to 
 fully open them without producing a sense of " much 
 weariness " in the mind, if not " of the flesh." 
 
 The history of the Church of England is in truth 
 co-extensive with the history of the English people. 
 " The Church of England is the oldest institution in the 
 realm. It had a history before the English crown was 
 settled, before the English constitution was formulated, 
 and before the English parliament had an existence. 
 ' If you take the Church of England,' it has been said, 
 ' out of the history of England, the history of England 
 becomes a chaos, a condition without order, without life, 
 and without meaning.' The Church of England was, 
 for successive centuries, the only organized representa- 
 
other Religious Communions. 159 
 
 tive of the Christian religion in this land. It was the 
 only existing institution through which the people of 
 this realm expressed their religious life, and it may 
 therefore be correctly called the historic Church of this 
 country." 
 
 The points, however, in the history of the Church of 
 England which are of chief interest and importance to 
 us in these days are — (i) the spiritual continuity of the 
 Church, from the time of its foundation to the present 
 day ; and (2) the historical continuity of the Church 
 throughout the entire period before the Reformation 
 with the Church after •the Reformation. When we speak 
 of the spiritual continuity of the Church of England, we 
 speak of that which constitutes and perpetuates the 
 inner life of a society which is engaged in promoting 
 the highest spiritual interests of mankind, and which, in 
 its original form, lays claim to a spiritual origin. When 
 we speak of the historical continuity of the Church of 
 England, we speak of that outward framework which 
 protects and enshrines the inner spiritual life, and is on 
 that account, and so long as it fulfils that function, 
 important to preserve. 
 
 I. The spiritual continuity of the Church of England, 
 as of every other part of Christ's Church, is maintained 
 in the regular and orderly succession of the ministry. 
 For practical purposes this succession is referred to the 
 episcopate, since it contains within itself all the orders 
 and offices of the ministry, and is entrusted with the 
 chief part in perpetuating them. The landing of Augus- 
 tin (a.d. 597) at Ebbsflcet, near Minster, in the Isle of 
 Thanet (at a spot on which Lord Granville has recently 
 
i6o The Church of England and 
 
 erected a memorial cross), subsequent to his consecra- 
 tion as " Bishop of the English by Vigilius, Metropolitan 
 of Aries, and yEtherius, Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul," is 
 commonly considered as fixing a date from which to 
 reckon the foundation of the Church of England with 
 its episcopate and other orders of the ministry. At 
 the same time we should remember that there is well- 
 authenticated evidence of the existence of a Christian 
 Church in Britain during the later years of the Roman 
 occupation, and before the country was invaded by the 
 Jutes and the Saxons and the Angles, from the latter of 
 whom it received its new name of England. The mem- 
 bers of this British Church were almost wholly destroyed 
 by the sword of the invaders, or buried beneath the 
 ruins of their churches or their homes. Those who 
 escaped from the fire or the sword fled into the west, to 
 Cambria or to Cornwall, which the victorious English 
 called Welsh-land, or the " Land of the Foreigner." The 
 Bishops of London and York remained in their sees 
 until they saw the country relapse into paganism, and 
 they were forced by persecution to join their brethren 
 in Wales. And we should also remember that mis- 
 sionaries from Ireland had been active in propagating 
 the doctrines of the Christian religion amongst the 
 north-men, the Picts and the Scots, of whom the latter 
 had emigrated from Ireland. In doing this they were 
 but repaying the debt which their country owed in the 
 century before to St. Patrick, who, although a native of 
 North Britain, went on a mission to the Irish, or as they 
 were then called the Scots, and has since been known 
 as the " Apostle of Ireland." Through the exertions of 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 i6i 
 
 the missionaries from Ireland, Northumbria was partly- 
 converted to Christianity before the arrival of Paulinus, 
 *who had joined Augustin in 60 1, and was consecrated 
 a bishop by Justus, a successor of Augustin. In 565 
 Columba crossed over from Ireland and founded the 
 famous monastery of lona. The see of Lindisfarne, 
 or Holy Isle, on the coast of Northumberland (the 
 mother Church of Durham), was founded by Aidan, 
 a brother in the monastery of lona, in 634, and was 
 ruled by Irish or Scottish prelates until the middle of 
 the seventh century. These missionaries from Ireland 
 laboured also among the fugitive Britons of the West, 
 where they have left numerous memorials of their labours 
 in the names of villages, and on sculptured crosses. 
 
 We can, up to this time, trace the order of spiritual 
 succession in the episcopate of the Church in Britain 
 through the Irish or Scottish Church, which seems to have 
 been an independent sister Church to the British, and, 
 like it, to have derived its orders from the Church in Gaul. 
 This Church is said, in some of its sees, to have received 
 its episcopate from the Church of Ephesus, of which the 
 Apostle St. John is known to have been, in the later 
 years of his life, the chief pastor or bishop, and the 
 Apostle St. Paul to have been one of the founders. The 
 direct succession, too, through the Gallican Church, 
 becomes more distinct by the consecration of Augustin, 
 as we have seen, by the Archbishop of Aries. So that 
 while Augustin derived his mission from Gregory, 
 Bishop of Rome, he derived his episcopal orders from the 
 Church in Gaul, and his jurisdiction from the Kings of 
 Kent and Essex. 
 
 M 
 
1 62 The CImrch of England and 
 
 The kingdom of Kent was the first to receive 
 the good tidings of the Christian faith from the hps 
 of Augustin and his companions, through the influence 
 of Bercta, the daughter of Charibert, King of the 
 Franks, and the first wife of -^Ethelbert. From yEthel- 
 bert Augustin received the gift of his own palace for a 
 residence, and the Church of St. Martin, together with 
 two other British churches, which, having been used for 
 pagan rites, he reconsecrated. He made Canterbury, 
 the capital of Kent, the archiepiscopal see instead of 
 London, as Pope Gregory had proposed. He con- 
 secrated Justus as Bishop of Rochester, Mellitus as 
 Bishop of London, and Laurentius as his successor at 
 Canterbury. Thus only two kingdoms of the Saxon 
 Heptarchy, Kent and Essex, were reached by the teach- 
 ing of Augustin, and these subsequently relapsed for a 
 while into paganism. "The firstfruits of Saxon Chris- 
 tianity were undoubtedly due to him, but they were 
 firstfruits very slightly connected with the subsequent 
 harvest. The technical transmission of one line of our 
 apostolical succession in the Church of England may 
 come to us through Augustin. The living stream of 
 gospel truth mainly passed to us through British and 
 Irish channels. Of one thing there can be no doubt, 
 that, had it not been for British missionaries, and for the 
 independent mission of Birinus in Wessex, there would 
 not have been one Christian Saxon outside the bound- 
 aries of the Kentish kingdom fifty years after the mission 
 from Rome had been planted. The record of the sixty 
 years' labours of the entire Italian Kentish mission is 
 summed up, after the Kentish success, in three failures 
 
other Religions Communions. 
 
 163 
 
 to extend their limits, and in a simple abstinence from 
 any effort at all to convert the little county of Sussex, 
 which remained pagan even after the last Italian prelate 
 had been laid to rest in St. Augustin's porch. But the 
 indirect results of the Italian mission were of very 
 different proportions. Had it not been for the link 
 thus riveted between Canterbury and Rome, the Celtic 
 Church in this island would have speedily swept back 
 with a returning wave, and severed the whole land effec- 
 tually from southern, or from Continental influences." 
 " The mission of Augustin and the victory which the 
 genius of Wilfrid gained over the Celtic Church at the 
 Synod of Whitby, saved England from the clannish 
 quarrels of the Irish Church, and caused her to reap 
 some of the ultimate advantages of being made part of 
 the European system." 
 
 But if Augustin, the Italian, is commonly reckoned as 
 the nominal founder of the Church in England and its 
 episcopate, its real founder was Theodore the Greek, a 
 native, like the Apostle St. Paul, of Tarsus in Cilicia. 
 The episcopal succession through the Church of Rome 
 came in with him. He was the one archbishop who was 
 consecrated by the Pope of Rome. Till his time the 
 Church in England had been a mere collection of mis- 
 sions, unconnected and disunited. " The pastoral system 
 thoroughly supervised by bishops, with sees of manage- 
 able dimensions, and worked by an educated clergy, and 
 the whole regulated by an annual Synod were the four 
 points on which Theodore's whole work was concen- 
 trated. New sees were created and placed by him in 
 subordination to the see of Canterbury, which from that 
 
164 The Chitrch of England and 
 
 time became the centre of Church authority in England. 
 It was he who originated the movement which, in course 
 of time, has developed into our present network of parish 
 churches, each with its appointed priest in settled pas- 
 toral relations to a definite flock. " A church with its 
 proper presbyter, weekly mass, and a sermon was in all 
 cases to be provided." He persuaded the landowners 
 to build and endow churches on their estates, and to 
 assign to their chaplains the independent position of 
 incumbents, in return for which he conceded to them 
 and to their heirs-at-law the right of presenting to these 
 livings, provided the Church had a sufficient income for 
 the maintenance of the minister. Archbishop Theodore 
 also held the first recorded provincial Synod of the 
 Church of England, at Hertford, in 673, and a second 
 Synod at Hatfield, in 680, at which the decrees of the 
 first five General Councils were accepted, as well as those 
 of the Lateran Council held in 649. In this council Pope 
 Honorius was condemned as a supporter of the Mono- 
 thelite heresy (which maintained that, although there 
 were two Natures in our Lord, there was but one divine 
 Will, thereby detracting from His perfect humanity). 
 Thus Theodore established the orthodoxy of the Church 
 in England. Nor was his ecclesiastical work without its 
 political eff'ect. It prepared the ground for the growth 
 of national unity, and the subsequent close alliance 
 between the Church and the State. " The organization 
 of the Church preceded and initiated the organiza- 
 tion of the kingdom. The single throne of the primate 
 at Canterbury accustomed men's minds to the thought 
 of a single throne for their temporal sovereign. The 
 
other Religions Co7iimunions. 165 
 
 regular subordination of priest to bishop and of bishop 
 to archbishop in the administration of the Church, sup- 
 phed a mould in which the civil organization of the State 
 quickly shaped itself." The provincial Synods, convened 
 and presided over by the archbishop, were the first of all 
 national gatherings for general legislation. These eccle- 
 siastical synods led the way to our national parliaments, 
 as it was the canons enacted in such synods which led the 
 way to a national system of law, embodied in civil statutes, 
 or Acts of Parliament. That the organization of the 
 Church under Theodore must have been systematically 
 effected is shown by the fact that, notwithstanding the 
 terrible ravages of the Danes in the next century, and the 
 destruction of the monasteries, where the chief wealth of 
 the Church was collected, these Northern conquerors 
 were brought within the fold of the Church, and the 
 later period before the Norman conquest was remark- 
 able for activity in the Christian life all over England. 
 Twenty bishops were consecrated during the occupancy 
 of the see of Canterbury by Theodore. He was suc- 
 ceeded by Berthwald, from whose succession all the 
 Archbishops of Canterbury and York descended for 
 about five hundred years. Berthwald had been conse- 
 crated by Godwyn, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and as 
 some of the bishops who had been consecrated by Arch- 
 bishop Theodore were associated with Berthwald in the 
 consecration of succeeding bishops, the spiritual succes- 
 sion which had come partly through Roman and partly 
 through Gallican channels was thus united. 
 
 The spiritual continuity of the Church of England in 
 the succession of the episcopate from Archbishops Theo- 
 
1 66 The Chm'ch of England and 
 
 dore and Bcrthwald to that of Archbishop Craiimer in 
 1533, is sufficiently acknowledged. Cranmer was suc- 
 ceeded in the primacy in 1 5 56, by Cardinal Reginald Pole, 
 who died only a few hours after Queen Mary, in 1558. 
 At the accession of Queen Elizabeth the see of Canter- 
 bury was vacant, and it is at this point of time that the 
 spiritual continuity of the Church of England is said by 
 some to have been irreparably severed. But is it so 
 There were at this time only fourteen bishops in posses- 
 sion of their respective sees. All of them, with the 
 exception of Kitchin, Bishop of Llandaff, refused com- 
 pliance with the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, 
 and were deprived of their sees. But there were living 
 three bishops who had been deprived in the reign of 
 Mary, Coverdale of Exeter, Scory of Hereford, and Bar- 
 low of Bath and Wells. The two former had been con- 
 secrated under the ordinal in use from the second year 
 of King Edward VI. (i 548-1549) to the time of Charles 
 II. It is this ordinal of which the thirty-sixth Article 
 of Religion says, " it contains nothing superstitious or 
 ungodly." The latter was consecrated under the old 
 pontifical in use up to the second year of King Edward VI. 
 These three bishops were associated in the consecration 
 of Dr. Matthew Parker to the see of Canterbury. And 
 since a statute, passed in the reign of Henry VIII., 
 required that for the consecration of an archbishop there 
 should be a metropolitan and two bishops, or, in the 
 absence of a metropolitan (as in this case), four bishops, 
 Hodgkins, Bishop-Suffragan of Bedford, who had been 
 also consecrated under the old pontifical, was added to 
 complete the number. Consecration by one bishop is 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 167 
 
 not canonically invalid, for in fact there need be but one 
 consecrator to speak the words which give the authority, 
 but the number has been increased to three by certain 
 ecclesiastical canons, in order to prevent clandestine or 
 irregular consecrations. In the consecration of Parker 
 to the vacant see of Canterbury, every care was taken 
 to comply with the ecclesiastical canons and with the 
 laws of the realm. It is important for us to know, with 
 all the certainty that can be obtained from public records, 
 that the consecration of Parker as archbishop was both 
 canonical and lawful, inasmuch as chiefly from him all 
 the subsequent Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 
 and by consequence all the bishops of the other sees in 
 these two provinces, and the clergy ordained by them, 
 claim their spiritual succession to the present day. 
 
 II. There are certain objections which have been 
 raised against the spiritual continuity of the episcopate, 
 and therefore against the continuity of the holy orders of 
 the ministry in the Church of England, since the death 
 of Cardinal Pole in 1558. The first of these objections 
 has reference to the validity of the consecration of 
 Archbishop Parker ; the second to the validity of the 
 consecration of Bishop Barlow, who is regarded as the 
 chief consecrator of Parker ; the third turns upon the 
 validity of the ordinal in use at the consecration of 
 Archbishop Parker, the fourth upon the doctrine of suffi- 
 cient intention to consecrate him a bishop, and the fifth 
 upon the question whether all episcopal jurisdiction and 
 mission must not be derived from the Bishop of Rome. 
 
 I. In connection with the consecration of the arch- 
 bishop there was once a current story which was to be 
 
1 68 TJie Church of England and 
 
 found in all Romish bookswhich had anything tosayabout 
 Holy Orders in the Church of England. It was called 
 " The Nag's Head Fable." There are five or six somewhat 
 inconsistent versions of this story, but the substance is 
 that Dr. Matthew Parker having been nominated, at the 
 accession of Queen Elizabeth, to succeed Cardinal Pole 
 in the see of Canterbury, went, with various other eccle- 
 siastics, to the " Nag's Head " tavern in Cheapside, where, 
 on a day unspecified, Scory, who had been consecrated 
 Bishop of Hereford in 1551, consecrated by a mock 
 ceremony Parker, and the other bishops-elect, and that 
 they, in the like mock way, consecrated Scory. This 
 marvellous performance, so little likely to have remained 
 unknown at a time when the fiercest light was beating 
 on the throne and on the Church, was not made known 
 until 1604, forty-five years after the consecration of 
 Parker. The story was traced to the inventive imagina- 
 tion of Christopher Holywood (or a Sacro Bosco), an 
 exiled Anglo-Roman Jesuit, who recorded it as hearsay 
 from a Mr. Neale, in a controversial book published at 
 Antwerp. As this story has now been so fully shown 
 to rest upon no credible evidence, and to be in itself 
 so absurdly improbable, it has been given up by every 
 Roman controversialist of any note. It will be a more 
 interesting pursuit to look at the evidence on the other 
 side. The public records prove (i) that Parker was 
 elected by the dean and canons of the Cathedral Church 
 of Canterbuiy, on September 6, 1559 ; (2) that the con- 
 firmation of his election took place at St. Mary-le-Bow 
 Church, December 9 ; (3) that his consecration was per- 
 formed in the chapel of Lambeth Palace, December 17. 
 
other Religious Communions. 169 
 
 A narrative of his consecration, together with a copy of 
 the register, still exists in the archives of Lambeth, and 
 a duplicate in the library of Corpus Christi College, 
 Cambridge, which gives a detailed account of what took 
 place, and of the dresses and ceremonies, noting specially 
 the fact that each of the four consecrating bishops on 
 this particular occasion, used the Form or Words of Con- 
 secration. In addition to the evidence afforded by the 
 public records, both civil and ecclesiastical, of the valid 
 consecration of Archbishop Parker, there is also the 
 evidence to be gathered from (i) The Zurich Letters, 
 that is, letters from English Reformers, chiefly of the 
 early part of Elizabeth's reign, giving to their friends 
 abroad an account of the religious settlement which was 
 at that time being made in the Church of England. 
 These letters agree in their statements respecting the 
 consecration of Parker and other bishops with the eccle- 
 siastical registers and the State Papers. (2) An entry 
 in a diary kept by Machyn, an undertaker, and a citizen 
 of London, who notes the fact of Archbishop Parker's 
 consecration on the correct day (December 17) without 
 the faintest idea of any controversy that might after- 
 wards arise on the subject. (3) An entry in the arch- 
 bishop's private diary, expressed in words most natural, 
 but evidently not intended for any eyes but his own to 
 sec. Here, too, we may add what Dr. Dollinger has 
 said on the question of Parker's consecration : " The fact 
 that Parker was rightly consecrated by four rightly con- 
 secrated bishops is as well established a fact as any 
 fact can be. Bossuet has acknowledged the validity of 
 Parker's consecration, and no critical historian can dis- 
 
1 70 The Church of England and 
 
 pute it. The orders of the Roman Church could be 
 disputed with more reason." 
 
 2. The consecration of Bishop Barlow becomes of 
 importance chiefly in connection with that of Archbishop 
 Parker. It is said that the record of his consecration 
 is missing, probably owing to the carelessness of the 
 registrar during the primacy of Cranmer. This is an 
 objection which applies equally to certain other bishops. 
 The record of the consecration of Goldwell, for instance, 
 who sat at the Council of Trent, as Bishop of St. Asaph, 
 is missing. But it is an objection which had no weight 
 with persons living at the time ; for Bishop Barlow's 
 consecration was not doubted until eighty years after the 
 date commonly assigned to it. Bishop Barlow is known 
 to have been elected in 1536 to the see of St. Asaph, and 
 in the same year to have been translated to the see of 
 St. David's ; and it is known, from the duly entered 
 records, that his election to each of these sees was 
 confirmed. In 1548 he was translated to the see of 
 Bath and Wells, and 1559 to that of Chichester. It is 
 known that he sat in the House of Lords, and in the 
 Upper House of Convocation in June, 1536, and we may 
 be sure that both these assemblies would have raised a 
 fatal objection to the admission of a prelate concerning 
 whose lawful consecration there was any doubt. Further, 
 the conge' d'elire issued by Queen Mary, naming Gilbert 
 Bourne Bishop of Bath and Wells, recites " the cession of 
 William Barlow, the last bishop thereof," as the cause of 
 the vacancy. On this subject Dr. Lingard, the Roman 
 Catholic historian, writes, in the Catholic Magazine, as 
 follows : " For ten years Barlow performed all the sacred 
 
other Religious Communions. 171 
 
 duties, and exercised all the civil rights of a consecrated 
 bishop. He was one of the officiating bishops at the 
 consecration of Bulkley, yet we are now called upon to 
 believe that he was no bishop, and yet that no one at 
 the time objected to his orders, although in that case 
 they must have known them to be illegal, or to his ordi- 
 nations, although they must have known them to be 
 irregular, or to his performance of episcopal functions, 
 although they must have known that each such function, 
 if he were not a lawful bishop, was a gross and wilful 
 sacrilege." But the importance of the fact of Bishop 
 Barlow's consecration, of which there can be no reason- 
 able doubt, is limited by the circumstance that he was 
 only one of four bishops who joined in the consecration 
 of Archbishop Parker, and that the consecration of the 
 other three has never been called in question. Each of 
 the four consecrating bishops too joined, as we have 
 seen, in using the same form of words in laying their 
 hands on the head of the archbishop-elect. 
 
 3. A third objection which has been raised against the 
 validity of holy orders in the Church of England, asserts 
 that the form of conferring the order of a bishop on 
 Parker according to the revised ordinal of the second 
 year of Edward VI. was imperfect and invalid, inasmuch 
 as the office of a bishop, which it was supposed to confer, 
 was not specified at the time of the laying on of hands, 
 as it is, for instance, in our present Ordinal. Of the full 
 form now in use, " Receive (or take) the Holy Ghost for 
 the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God," 
 only the former part, " Receive the Holy Ghost," was 
 used, and it is urged that this form might be equally 
 
172 The CImrch of England and 
 
 adapted for any of the minor orders in the Church. 
 The answer to this objection is very obvious. 
 
 In none of the old Enghsh pontificals (except that 
 of Exeter) is there any determining word used at the 
 time of the imposition of hands. So that Archbishop 
 Parker was in no worse case in this respect than any of 
 his predecessors in the see of Canterbury. The same 
 defect, if it be one, is observable in the Roman ponti- 
 fical. " If there arc true bishops in the Church of Rome 
 although they were not called bishops in the very act 
 of consecrating them, — if there are true bishops in the 
 Eastern Churches, although neither their heads nor their 
 hands are anointed with oil, — then, so far as the form of 
 consecration goes, there are, and always have been, 
 true bishops also in the Church of England ; true priests 
 first of all, because truly ordained to the priesthood, and 
 then, by as true a consecration, true bishops also. And 
 upon grounds which the Church of Rome is bound in 
 fairness to admit, if ever there should be a reconciliation 
 between that Church and ours, and if other stumbling- 
 blocks on either side should be removed out of the path, 
 the bishops and priests of the Church of England must 
 be received not as laymen, but as in Holy Orders." 
 
 4. Another objection has been raised to the validity 
 of our orders on the ground of the absence of sufficient 
 intention. To this objection it may be replied that "the 
 words and act of ordination are not a charm which 
 imprint a character on the recipient by the use of a 
 number of syllables taken in a certain order. They are 
 the outward expression by which the body of the 
 Christian Church, through its appointed ministers, and 
 
other ReligioiLs Communions. 173 
 
 in the way sanctioned by divine authority, transmits 
 and intends to transmit the promised grace of the Holy 
 Spirit for the special office of the ministry. Provided 
 the persons concerned are seriously engaged as in a 
 religious rite, and so far intend to do what the Church 
 appoints them to do, other necessary conditions being 
 fulfilled, it is obvious that the ordinary plain rules of 
 human life and actions would pronounce the act to be 
 rightly and duly performed." 
 
 5. A fifth objection, when all the others have in turn 
 been answered, has been raised, on the question of juris- 
 diction and mission. It is said that all authority to 
 exercise any spiritual office in the Catholic Church must 
 be derived from the see of Rome, since the Pope is 
 universal bishop, and supreme over all other bishops in 
 Christendom. But this is a proposition which was 
 never heard of before the twelfth century, and is merely 
 an invention of Italian theologians for the purpose of 
 exalting the Roman see. It is simply, so far as the 
 Church of England is concerned, a branch of those 
 usurpations on the part of the Pope, which stand or fall 
 with the question of papal supremacy. The jurisdiction 
 of one chief bishop, e.g. that of Rome over all other 
 bishops, is not of divine but of human right, and there- 
 fore in its nature liable to alteration. It is a jurisdic- 
 tion which, if confined within rightful limits, might be 
 granted if it were thought expedient. But it was never 
 wholly acquiesced in by the English Church and nation, 
 and when pushed to an exorbitant degree, and made the 
 source of intolerable oppression and evil, it was finally 
 rejected. "The present Ultramontane supporters of the 
 
174 The Church of England and 
 
 papacy claim to convert what is really a matter of 
 ecclesiastical, and partially also of State arrangement, 
 into a fundamental dogma of a divinely appointed 
 centre of all valid authority for the exercise of spiritual 
 functions, of all true faith, and of all grace and truth to 
 the whole Church." Moreover, it has been shown that 
 the whole ecclesiastical jurisdiction, appertaining to or 
 derived from the see of Rome, has failed wholly through- 
 out the entire Latin communion. " All acts done by 
 the Popes themselves, or requiring papal sanction for 
 their validity since 1492 (the date of the simoniacal 
 election of the infamous Roderic Borgia under the name 
 of Alexander VI.), have been inherently null and void, 
 because emanating from usurping and illicit Pontiffs, 
 every one of whom has been uncanonically intruded into 
 the papal chair, by mere titular electors, viz. cardinals, 
 having no claim to vote in consequence of their own 
 irregular appointment. The whole body of the cardinals 
 nominated by Alexander VI. and his immediate suc- 
 cessors, Julius II. and Leo X., were illicitly appointed by 
 reason of simony, that is, by purchase of their rank, and 
 therefore were not true cardinals. As a matter of course 
 these illicitly appointed cardinals, being the electoral 
 body, can only have elected illicit popes, who in their 
 turn being themselves illicitly elected, could only have 
 appointed more illicit cardinals." There has thus been 
 no valid Pope for nearly four hundred years, and, ac- 
 cordingly, on Roman principles, the Anglican bishops 
 in the reign of Elizabeth would have turned in vain to 
 Rome for their mission, or for authority to exercise their 
 lawful jurisdiction. 
 
other Religious Communions. 175 
 
 III. As the holy orders conferred by the episcopate, 
 and the episcopate itself of the Church of England have 
 been discredited, with what show of reason we have 
 seen, because the bishops have not received mission and 
 jurisdiction from the see of Rome, so, on the other hand, 
 to leave no weapon untried in the armoury of contro- 
 versy, it has been urged against the ministers of the 
 Church of England that they derive their jurisdiction 
 from the State. Hitherto, the objections which have 
 been considered and answered have proceeded from the 
 Ultramontane defenders of papal supremacy. The ob- 
 jections have been urgedj by those who, like ourselves, 
 hold the necessity of an apostolic ministry derived 
 through the episcopate to the constitution and con- 
 tinuance of the Christian Church, but who, unlike our- 
 selves, supplement this ancient doctrine with the more 
 modern theory of papal jurisdiction. 
 
 The last objection comes both from the Roman 
 Church and from English Nonconformists who, while 
 they lay no stress on the necessity for an apostolic 
 ministry, shrink from the incongruity of a State tribunal 
 dealing with religious belief In replying to the objec- 
 tion as it is urged by the Roman Church, we may point 
 out, first, that the extreme State claims of Henry VIII. 
 and Edward VI. were provoked, if they are not to be 
 justified, by previous usurpation, equally indefensible, 
 of the court of Rome upon the State ; secondly, that 
 these extreme claims were qualified by restrictions and 
 admissions ; and thirdly, that eveiy one of these claims 
 has been long since renounced and abolished, so that 
 neither the Church nor the nation can be held perma- 
 
176 The ChtircJi of England and 
 
 nently responsible. As this is a question which will 
 meet us again when we have to consider the history of 
 papal supremacy, and the relations between the Church 
 and the State in connection with establishment, we may 
 now let it rest, especially too as it would take us away 
 too far from the main subject now before us — the 
 spiritual continuity of the Church of England, as 
 evidenced in the regular succession of the ministrj-. 
 The evidence we have already put forward shows that 
 the spiritual succession of Archbishop Parker is derived 
 ultimately from Berthwald and Theodore and Augus- 
 tin, and if from these bishops, then — if they were rightly 
 consecrated, of which there is no doubt on either side — 
 from bishops who were more easily able, by reason of 
 a less distance of time, to trace their spiritual descent 
 from one or other of the apostles. And in addition to 
 the evidence from public and private sources in favour 
 of Archbishop Parker's valid consecration, and the con- 
 sequent validity of all consecrations performed by him, 
 and of holy orders generall)- in the Church of England, 
 a collateral proof is to be found in the brief of Pope 
 Julius III., March 8, 1554. This Pope, without any 
 distinction of the ordinations conferred during the reigns 
 of Henry VIII. and Edward VL, or any allusions to the 
 difference of the ordinals or pontificals in use, left it 
 to the judgment of Cardinal Pole to "rehabilitate" — 
 that is to reconcile and reinstate in their cathedral 
 churches, not to reconsecrate — those of the bishops 
 whom he should judge worthy, to allow them the con- 
 secration they had^ received under the revised ordinal 
 of Edward VI.. and to permit them to consecrate and 
 
other Religious Communions. 177 
 
 ordain others. One of these bishops whose episcopal 
 orders were thus recognized and allowed by the Pope, 
 was Scory, of Hereford, one of the consecrators of 
 Archbishop Parker. Further, at the Council of Trent, 
 a discussion took place during which it was shown that 
 the English bishops who had been ordained by the 
 pontifical in use in the reign of Edward VI. were 
 acknowledged to have every element of the episcopal 
 character, and that English orders were admitted as 
 valid on every ground except that of their receiving 
 confirmation from the Pope. And that this confirma- 
 tion or recognition is not essential is proved by the 
 fact that the independent validity and regularity of 
 holy orders in the Eastern Church is admitted by the 
 Church of Rome without demur, and that bishops of 
 the Eastern Church were invited by Pope Pius IX, to 
 the council held in the Vatican in 1869. 
 
 I have dwelt at some length, and yet in as brief a 
 manner as the voluminous nature of the question admits, 
 on the validity and regularity of holy orders in the 
 Church of England, because if their validity can be 
 firmly established on a historical basis, as we have seen 
 it can be, it affords a sufficient proof of the assertion 
 that there has been no breach of spiritual continuity. 
 It is readily admitted that this spiritual continuity was 
 unbroken from (let us say) the time of the consecration 
 of Augustin in 597, to that of Parker in 1559, through 
 whom and through some of those bishops who were his 
 consecrators, the present succession in the episcopate 
 and the priesthood in the Church of England has been 
 derived. If the consecration of those bishops was in 
 
 N 
 
I 78 The Church of England and 
 
 all essential points valid and regular, the spiritual con- 
 tinuity of the Church of England remains unbroken, 
 and whatever schism has been made, it has not been 
 made by English Churchmen withdrawing from the old 
 Church, and setting up a new one after their own inven- 
 tion, but by the supporters of the papal supremacy, who 
 withdrew from communion with the Church as it had 
 been resettled, after the accession of Queen Elizabeth, 
 by the representative Convocations of the bishops and 
 clergy, and the representative Houses of Parliament. 
 
 The episcopate which was intruded in the reign 
 of Queen Mary into the English sees, of which the 
 Edwardian bishops were the lawful possessors, died out 
 without any steps being taken to perpetuate the succes- 
 sion ; so that the introduction in 1850, by Pope Pius IX., 
 of a new and foreign episcopate, which pretends to exer- 
 cise local jurisdiction within the limits of existing sees in 
 England, is both uncanonical and uncatholic. This was 
 the line of argument which Cardinal ^Manning took 
 when, as a priest of the English Church, he condemned 
 the action of the Supreme Pontiff in attempting to 
 impose an uncanonical jurisdiction over the English 
 Church. It may be pointed out, in conclusion, how 
 singularly strong a recognition it was of the principle of 
 apostolic succession, and of its importance, that Queen 
 Elizabeth and her advisers strove so hard as they did to 
 secure a valid transmission of the episcopate by episcopal 
 consecration, and, if possible (had not the unhappy pre- 
 judices of the Marian bishops kept them aloof), by a 
 united episcopal consecration, that should have left no 
 pretence for a schism under the authority of the Roman 
 curia. 
 
other Religious Communions. 1 79 
 
 LECTURE X. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND — ITS HISTORICAL 
 CONTINUITY. 
 
 In the previous lecture I endeavoured to show that the 
 spiritual continuity of holy orders, residing as it does 
 chiefly in the episcopate, has not been broken in the 
 Church of England from the earliest time of its organi- 
 zation to the present day. The existing incumbent of 
 the see of Canterbury can, in fact, be shown to be 
 more truly a lineal spiritual descendant of Berthwald, 
 and Theodore, and Augustin, than the Bishop of Rome, 
 to the exclusion of all other bishops, of the Apostle 
 St. Peter. I also pointed out that the episcopate, which 
 was intruded into England during the reign of Queen 
 Mary, and acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Pope, 
 had entirely died out by the year 1584, so that it was 
 a wholly new and foreign episcopate which was intro- 
 duced into England in 1850 by Pope Pius IX. I pro- 
 pose in the present lecture to endeavour to show the 
 truth of the second important fact which I enunciated — 
 the historical continuity of the Church of England 
 throughout the entire period before the Reformation 
 with the Church after the Reformation. 
 
i8o The Church of England and 
 
 "The time of the Reformation" is so constantly used 
 as an indefinite expression in books and speeches, both 
 Roman and anti-Roman or Protestant, to cover any 
 length of time which may be convenient to the writer or 
 speaker, that it is necessary, in the first place, to define 
 what is here meant by the phrase. If in the place of the 
 word " Reformation " I use either of the phrases, " The 
 abolition of the papal supremacy," or " The establish- 
 ment of the royal supremacy," I shall limit the extent 
 of the expression to the date of the Act of Submission 
 and the Act of Supremacy, which were passed in the 
 years 1533, 1534, in the reign of Henry VIII. As a 
 matter of State policy Henry, by securing the passing 
 of these and certain other Acts, put a final limit to an 
 old grievance — the supremacy of the Pope, or " the 
 jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in this realm of 
 England." 
 
 The Church of England owes, as we have seen, its 
 primary organization and the main lines of its constitu- 
 tion to the labours and genius of Archbishop Theodore, 
 669-690. Theodore had been consecrated and sent to 
 England by Pope Vitalian, but that he did not acknow- 
 ledge the supremacy or jurisdiction of the Pope in Eng- 
 land is manifest from his conduct towards Wilfrid. This 
 bishop had appealed to the Pope(Agatho)to be reinstated 
 in the see of York. He returned to England with a letter 
 from the Pope, to which was attached the papal " bull," 
 or leaden seal {bulla). This letter summoned Theodore 
 to attend a Council at Constantinople, and hurled an 
 anathema against any one who should resist the 
 decree for reinstating Wilfrid. But the archbishop 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 i8i 
 
 successfully resisted both the order and the anathema. 
 He did not, until close upon his death, reinstate Wilfrid, 
 and he did not attend the Council. The Church of 
 England, while recognizing the primacy of the see 
 of Rome, as would be natural from its imperial asso- 
 ciations, seems, during all the time of the Saxon and 
 Danish rule, to have aimed at preserving the indepen- 
 dence of a national Church. For instance, in 747, at 
 the council at Cloveshoo, in the kingdom of Mercia, 
 when Cuthbert, Archbishop of Canterbury, proposed to 
 refer difficult questions — that is, to make appeals — to the 
 Bishop of Rome, the members refused to compromise 
 the dignity of their Church, and the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury was declared to be its supreme head. And 
 again, in order to show at how late a date, and as it 
 were by accident, the papal supremacy gained a footing 
 in England, Pope Adrian yielded, not without the 
 acceptance of a bribe, to the selfish motives of the 
 licentious King Offa of Mercia, who wished to secure 
 an archbishop at Lichfield for his kingdom, as Northum- 
 bria had secured one for York, and Kent for Canterbury. 
 The Pope took advantage of the opportunity to require 
 that two papal legates should be admitted into the 
 kingdom and allowed to hold a Council ; and thus 
 a precedent for sending legates to England was estab- 
 lished, and the first public acknowledgment of papal 
 assumption in one division of the country was secured. 
 It was this same Offa who increased the endowment of 
 the school for the education of English children, which 
 had been founded at Rome by Ina, King of Wessex, by 
 imposing a tax upon every family in his kingdom, which 
 
1 82 The Church of England and 
 
 was then known by the name of Rome-scot, or Rome- 
 penny, and afterwards Peter's-pence. 
 
 It seemed as if, on the conquest of England by the 
 Normans, and the accession of William I., who claimed 
 the English crown not as a conqueror, but as the legiti- 
 mate sovereign nominated by Edward the Confessor, the 
 supremacy of the Pope would be fully secured. William 
 was the champion of the Pope with whose full concur- 
 rence and benediction his enterprise had been under- 
 taken. As he had taken possession of English lands 
 and houses in order to reward his Norman followers, so 
 he was bent on introducing Norman bishops into the 
 English sees, and Norman priests into English parishes. 
 The clergy opposed him, and Stigand the archbishop, 
 according to one account, refused to consecrate him. 
 William felt it would be regarded as a further proof of 
 tyranny if he were to deprive the archisbhop by his own 
 personal will, so he applied to Hildebrand (at that time 
 Archdeacon of Rome, afterwards Gregorj^ VII.), who 
 took advantage of the opportunity to put forward a claim, 
 previously unheard of, on behalf of the see of Rome, that 
 it " has the right to superintend all Christians." Accord- 
 ingly, two legates were sent to England, with whom 
 W^illiam held a Synod, when the archbishop was deposed 
 on the ground that he had not received from Rome the 
 pall {palliutn — the insignia of a metropolitan or patriarch, 
 which is to be seen in the heraldic arms of the see of 
 Canterbury). All the other bishops, except Wulfstan 
 of Worcester, were also deposed, ostensibly on account 
 of their ignorance of the French language, and refusal 
 to do homage to the king. 
 
other Relioious Communions. 
 
 Till the time of the Norman conquest there had been 
 no distinction between the civil and ecclesiastical juris- 
 dictions. All matters, spiritual as well as temporal, had 
 been determined in the same court, in which the bishop 
 had presided together with the earl (Eorl-alderman). 
 The separation of the ecclesiastical from the civil courts 
 was the act of William. " No bishop or archdeacon 
 was any longer to hold pleas of the laws episcopal 
 ir. the hundred, or to draw a cause which belongs 
 to the government of souls to the judgment of secular 
 men." Spiritual causes were to be tried only in 
 spiritual courts. This was the reward for his support of 
 tne Pope, but William could not foresee the troubles 
 which this change was soon to introduce into the rela- 
 tions between the Church and Crown. Although for 
 the establishment of his personal rule he made use of 
 the spiritual powers which the Pope assumed, in the 
 name of the see of Rome, to wield over all Christians, 
 he had no intention of yielding up his own independence. 
 He would not allow the bishops to obey citations to 
 Rome. He would not allow legates to be sent from the 
 Pope to this country without his royal licence. He 
 would not allow ecclesiastical decrees or papal letters 
 {briefs) to be received or promulgated without his 
 consent. He would not allow any Pope (and at this 
 time there were frequently Popes and anti-Popes) to be 
 acknowledged in England without his approval. He 
 would not allow any of his soldiers to be excommuni- 
 cated without his leave. He nominated to all vacant 
 ecclesiastical offices, and insisted upon giving to his 
 bishops investiture — that is, the pastoral staff, to signify 
 
TJie Church of Etigland and 
 
 the bishop's authority as the shepherd (pastor) of his 
 flock, and the ring, to signify his spiritual marriage to 
 the Church, the Bride of Christ. 
 
 He opposed the Pope and Lanfranc the archbishop, 
 when they endeavoured to enforce compulsory ceHbacy 
 on the secular or parish priests. When Hildebrand 
 (Gregory VII.) demanded that he should pay Peter's 
 pence, and declare himself the Pope's man, he replied, 
 " the money he would pay, not as a tribute but as an 
 alms, as his predecessors had paid it, but the homage he 
 would refuse as his predecessors had refused it." 
 
 William Rufus inherited from his father his exalted 
 notions of regal power, and of his supreme right over all 
 persons and causes as well ecclesiastical as civil. In his 
 reign it was openly asserted that it was a privilege of the 
 King of England to acknowledge the Pope or not, as 
 he pleased. The struggle between the spiritual and 
 temporal power, which was convulsing the Continental 
 nations, was imported into England. The Pope claimed 
 to himself the title of Head of the Church and Vicar of 
 Christ, while the Emperor claimed to be the successor 
 of the Caesars, of Constantine, and of Charlemagne. 
 " Each acknowledged in a certain degree the supremacy 
 of the other, but it was a subjection of jealousy, for 
 whilst each accorded to the other the minimum, he 
 claimed to himself the maximum of supremacy." At this 
 time also another schism had broken out in the Papacy. 
 There were two infallible Popes, one reigning in the 
 Lateran Palace as Urban II., the other reigning in the 
 Castle of St. Angelo as Clement III., and each excom- 
 municating the other. William took advantage of this 
 
other Religious Commimions. 185 
 
 schism to leave the abbeys and bishoprics vacant, and 
 to seize their revenues, which were held to have lapsed 
 to the king during a vacancy. 
 
 The quarrel between Henry I. and Archbishop 
 Anselm on the question of investiture, whether it should 
 be given by the Pope or the king, led still further to 
 the subjection of the English Church. Investiture con- 
 ferred on a bishop the spiritualities, as homage conferred 
 the temporalities of his see. Anselm, an Italian and a 
 monk, supported the cause of the papacy, even when he 
 distrusted the reigning Pope. He was willing to do 
 homage to the king (William Rufus) for his tempo- 
 ralities, and to accept investiture from him, but refused 
 to receive the pall from a secular person. When Henry I., 
 W^illiam's younger brother, required him to be reinvested 
 in the archbishopric, Anselm persistently refused ; for 
 although, as we have seen, William I. had exercised this 
 royal prerogative, and Anselm had already consented to 
 acknowledge it, the Pope had recently declared against 
 the practice. The question of investiture was, however, 
 at length settled in England, as it was settled, after fifty- 
 six years of conflict and sixty battles, on the Continent, 
 by a compromise. The right of homage for the tempo- 
 ralities was conceded to the king, and the right of 
 investiture, which conferred the spiritual authority, was 
 granted to the Pope. 
 
 A successor of Anselm, W^illiam of Corboil, or as 
 he was commonly styled " Old Turmoil," a French 
 priest, acknowledged the Pope's jurisdiction and supre- 
 macy in England, and considered himself, contrary to 
 the former recognized independence of the see of 
 
1 86 The Church of England and 
 
 Canterbury, to be merely the Pope's vicar. He, more 
 even than any of his predecessors, furthered the papal 
 dominion in England. During his primacy the Pope 
 appointed in 1125 a legate extraordinary {legatiis a 
 latere) in England, who, although he might be a suffragan 
 of Canterbury, or even in deacon's orders, claimed 
 authority over the primate, held synods, passed laws for 
 the English Church, and extorted enormous sums for 
 his foreign master. The appointment of a papal legate 
 became from this time established in England. Thus 
 by one archbishop, and himself a foreigner, the indepen- 
 dence of the English Church was forfeited. The struggle 
 between Henry H. and Archbishop Becket, chiefly on 
 the question of the authority of the civil courts over 
 ecclesiastics ; the murder of the primate, which was 
 received with horror throughout Christendom, no less 
 than by the king himself; and the subsequent humilia- 
 tion and submission of the king to the penance imposed 
 on him by the Pope, so that it was said " a Plantagenet 
 surrendered England to the Pope, and the Pope gave 
 him authority to subdue Ireland," still further advanced 
 the cause of papal supremacy. 
 
 It was, however, in the reign of King John, that the 
 papal power reached its height in this country. The 
 king complained that the Pope had usurped the rights of 
 the Church and Crown in appointing to the primacy Car- 
 dinal Stephen Langton, an Englishman, a biblical scholar, 
 a poet, and a statesman. The king received this appoint- 
 ment with defiance, and declared that he would rather 
 die than suffer such an infringement of his prerogative. 
 He threatened to cut off all communication with Rome. 
 
other Relinoits Communions. 
 
 187 
 
 He swore "by God's teeth " that if the Pope sent legates 
 to put his kingdom under an interdict, as was threatened 
 in the event of the exclusion of Langton, he would pluck 
 out their eyes, split their noses, and so send them back 
 to Rome. But Innocent III. was not a man to be moved 
 by the passionate threats of a weak and vacillating 
 monarch. He did put the kingdom under an interdict, 
 which was equivalent to throwing it back into a con- 
 dition of heathendom — an unjustifiable course of action 
 for one who claimed to be the vicar of Christ — and he 
 excommunicated the king. John held out for six years 
 and threatened to become a Mahommedan. Then the 
 Pope proceeded to depose him, and proclaimed a crusade 
 against him, promising to the King of France remission 
 of all his sins, and succession to the English crown. 
 But although John was able to raise a force of sixty 
 thousand men, and was supported by a large fleet, at 
 the last moment he made the most humiliating sub- 
 mission to the Pope. He was informed by Pandulf, the 
 Pope's legate, that he must resign the kingdoms of 
 England and Ireland to St. Peter, and hold them here- 
 after as a fief of the Pope, and in vassalage to the see 
 of Rome, under the annual payment of one thousand 
 marks. From this time John was regarded at Rome as 
 a pious and persecuted monarch. The Pope threw his 
 aegis over a murderer and a tyrant, and espoused his 
 cause against Archbishop Langton, against the barons, 
 and against the clergy. 
 
 Langton, although he had been appointed to his 
 see by the Pope, was an Englishman, the upholder 
 of the liberties of his country against both Pope and 
 
i88 Tfie Church of England and 
 
 king, and the originator of Magna Charta. He had 
 obtained from John an oath which bound him to 
 observe the laws of his country, first made by Edward 
 the Confessor, and afterwards confirmed by Henry I. 
 The barons had refused to follow John in an expedition 
 against the King of France, so indignant were they at 
 his conduct in humbling the kingdom before a foreign 
 power, as they esteemed that of the Pope. They had 
 hitherto acted separately in the defence of their indi- 
 vidual interests. Langton persuaded them to act 
 together as an order or estate of the realm. A council 
 was held at St. Alban's, 121 3, composed of the barons 
 and of chosen representatives throughout the country. 
 The barons, the people, and the clergy were in opposi- 
 tion to the king and the papal legate. Their army was 
 the army, not only of the barons against the king, but 
 of the Church against the Pope. We know the result 
 of this national movement. In spite of his usual oaths 
 and protests John signed the Charter in 121 5. By that 
 charter Langton secured for his country the fundamiental 
 principles of English liberty, and at the same time 
 faithfully ser\-ed the Church of which he was primate, 
 for the first article of the Charter declares that "the 
 Church of England shall be free, and have her rights 
 and her liberties uninjured." 
 
 As soon as Pope Innocent III. heard of these events 
 he issued a bull, in which, after declaring England to be 
 a fief of the holy see, that the king had no power to act 
 without consent of the Pope, and that the conduct of 
 the barons was an act of audacious wickedness, he 
 annulled Magna Charta, and forbade the king to observe 
 
other Religious Communions. 189 
 
 it. But the bull was treated with contempt, and 
 although Langton was summoned to Rome and sus- 
 pended from the exercise of his episcopal functions, he 
 returned to England at the death of the Pope and the 
 king, and set his seal to a slightly revised form of the 
 Great Charter. Thus while Archbishop Langton was 
 willing to render obedience to the Pope when he was 
 exercising his acknowledged powers within his rights, 
 he did not hesitate to oppose him when he saw that he 
 was acting unjustly or with a tyrannous hand. As a 
 people we are indebted for this early vindication of our 
 rights and liberties to the consistent and courageous 
 conduct of the chief pastor of the English Church. And 
 yet in the face of this evident fact, it can be gravely 
 asserted that the Church has always been the steady 
 opponent of liberty. 
 
 From the death of John, throughout the thirteenth 
 and fourteenth centuries, the history of the Church of 
 England is an almost uninterrupted record of papal 
 encroachments and abuses ; and as the Church had 
 grown very rich, and was regarded by the Popes as an 
 "inexhaustible well," no country in Europe suffered 
 so much from papal avarice. But the English people 
 did not willingly acquiesce in their subjection to Rome. 
 When, in 1365, Pope Urban V. demanded of the king 
 (Edward III.) the tribute of one thousand marks pro- 
 mised by King John, but unpaid for thirty-three years, 
 the three estates of the realm — clergy, peers, and com- 
 mons, aided by the pen of Wiclif — came to the unani- 
 mous decision that neither John nor any other king had 
 power to impose such a tax without the consent of 
 
igo The Chujrh of England and 
 
 the nation, and the king at the same time prohibited 
 the payment of Peter's pence. And even as early as the 
 reign of Edward I., when, in 1295, the king called together 
 a Parliament which was to represent all classes and 
 estates of the realm, an important series of legislative 
 enactments was passed which show that long before the 
 period of the Reformation it was found necessary to 
 secure the independence of the Church and nation 
 against the exactions of the Court {curia) of Rome. 
 
 By the system of " Provisions " the Pope provided 
 by previous nomination for the appointment to benefices 
 before they became vacant. In 1307 the Parliament 
 forced this subject on the king's attention, and the first 
 statute against " Provisions " was passed at Carlisle. In 
 1351, in the reign of Edward III., Parliament passed the 
 " Statute of Provisors," by which the appointment to 
 any benefice or ecclesiastical dignity by the Pope should 
 revert to the Crown. In 1393, in the reign of Richard II., 
 the "Statute of Prjemunire " was passed, which enacted 
 forfeiture of goods and banishment from the kingdom in 
 the case of any one procuring a benefice from the Pope. 
 This statute, which was eventually used in an unjust 
 manner against the clergy under Henry VIII., was 
 directed not against them, but against the Pope. " For 
 nothing is clearer than that in these earlier centuries the 
 clergy as well as the laity of the Church of England 
 were anti-papal, and that both Church and State were 
 united in resisting any encroachment made by the Pope 
 on the rights, the liberties, or the persons of the Church 
 or nation." The Parliament of 1 399 declared that the 
 Crown and Realm of England had been in all time past 
 
otJie)' Religious Communions. 191 
 
 so free, that neither Pope nor any one outside the realm 
 had a right to meddle therewith. 
 
 Meanwhile, the removal of the papacy first to Lyons 
 and then to Avignon, weakened the authority of the 
 Pope, and the independence of the Roman Church ; 
 while the great schism destroyed its unity. The schism 
 in the papacy did more for the Reformation, from an 
 ecclesiastical point of view, than later writers have always 
 recognized. "As early as the beginning of the sixteenth, 
 or even the latter part of the fifteenth century," says 
 Ranke, " throughout all Christendom a general struggle 
 was made to curtail the encroachments of the Pope." 
 From the period of the conclusion of the Wars of the 
 Roses, the papal power began sensibly to decline in Eng- 
 land. The time had arrived when the independence of 
 the country was to be re-asserted, and a change effected 
 in the relations of the Church with the see of Rome. So 
 that when Henry VII., the first of the Tudors, became 
 king, it was felt that a Reformation in the discipline of 
 the Church, and with regard to the exactions of the 
 Pope could not be much longer deferred. The people 
 at that time troubled themselves but little about a 
 reform in doctrine. It was the papal supremacy in 
 England that was called in question. The nation was 
 asking why it should be impoverished to support a 
 foreign jurisdiction. It was asking why large sums of 
 money, whether under the name of Peter's pence, or the 
 first fruits (that is the first year's income of benefices), or 
 payments for dispensations and privileges, or procura- 
 tions, should be drawn out of the country to enrich 
 the Pope, 
 
192 The Church of England and 
 
 I have found it necessary to enter somewhat fully 
 into the history of the papal supremacy in England, 
 because it supplies the only proper key to the subse- 
 quent action of Henry VIII. and his Parliaments towards 
 the Pope and towards the Church. 
 
 The first official proposal to repudiate the jurisdiction 
 of the Pope over the English Church proceeded from 
 the Church itself, in the form of a petition against pay- 
 ments to Rome, through its representative body, the 
 Convocations of the clergy. A Bill was introduced into 
 the House of Lords for the purpose of carrying this 
 petition into effect ; and having been passed in the 
 House of Commons received the royal assent. Thus 
 by the last Act of the Session of 1531, the principal 
 tribute which Rome had exacted from the Church of 
 England was abolished. At the same time it was 
 admitted that the Church of England was henceforth 
 independent of the Court of Rome, though it was not 
 separated from visible communion with the see of 
 Rome, except by some future act of the Pope himself. 
 
 But the crisis of the separation between the Anglican 
 Church and the Court of Rome formally occurred in 
 1534, when the Bishop of Rome (Clement VII.) 
 threatened to excommunicate Henry and to absolve his 
 subjects from their allegiance to their lawful sovereign. 
 The following question was solemnly proposed to the 
 bishops and clergy assembled in the provincial Synods 
 of Canterbury and York : " Hath the Bishop of Rome any 
 more authority in England by the laws of God than any 
 other foreign bishop ? " The answer was prompt and, 
 except that from Bishop Fisher, unanimous — " No." 
 
other Religions Comimmions. 193 
 
 Now, so prompt and nearly unanimous an answer 
 could never have been extracted from the consentient 
 lips of the elected members of these synods unless they 
 had felt that they were truly representing the opinions 
 of the majority of the clergy by whom they had been 
 elected. Further, so prompt and nearly unanimous an 
 answer could never have been extracted from such repre- 
 sentative assemblies if this same question had not been 
 for a long time waiting for an opportunity to be de- 
 finitely asked, and if the answer had not been already 
 very generallj' agreed upon. Men who have been for 
 the greater part of their lives accustomed to a certain 
 mode of action or process of thought, do not very easily 
 change their opinions, or consent to act upon a sudden 
 impulse of feeling. Henry VIII., it is true, possessed 
 or assumed to possess certain royal powers, the like of 
 which no sovereign of England could now attempt to 
 exercise without endangering his crown and his head. 
 But I do not think that even the arbitrary will of the 
 Tudors could have enforced so marked a revolution in 
 the opinions and habits of the people, unless they had 
 been already prepared to welcome the change, as soon 
 as the fitting time and occasion should arrive. And if 
 the histoiy of the Church of England in respect to this 
 one point of papal supremacy, which wc have traced 
 from its origin to its practical abolition, has taught us 
 anything, it has taught us that the people of this country 
 have never entirely acquiesced in submitting to the 
 jurisdiction of the Pope, even when the Church by 
 consent of our Roman brethren was "Catholic." Under 
 the more powerful kings of England, this jurisdiction 
 
 O 
 
194 The Church of Englaiid and 
 
 was kept under control, but under the weaker monarchs 
 abuses multiplied, and the yoke was made heavier. 
 Sometimes it was the clerg)-, sometimes it was the king, 
 sometimes it was the nation which raised a protest, or 
 offered a temporary resistance, but it was not until the 
 reign of Hcnr\' VIII. that all three were united in one 
 determinate effort to withstand all further encroach- 
 ments on their rights and liberties. 
 
 The first encroachments on these liberties were 
 without doubt due, more than to any other cause, to 
 the vices and oppressive conduct of some of the Xorman 
 kings. They seized the property of the Church. They 
 kept bishops' sees vacant, and let the revenues to the 
 highest bidder. They sold the endowments for religion 
 to procure the means to pander to their own vicious 
 pleasures or ambition, or to gratify the vices of others. 
 And what could the Church do to resist the spoliation 
 of its goods Persecuted and robbed by the State in 
 the representative person of the king and his courtiers, 
 the clergy must look for help to some powerful quarter, 
 and they put themselves, at the bidding of the bishops, 
 under the protection of the Pope. Thus the papal 
 power extended itself over Church and State by play- 
 ing off one against the other, and so making both its 
 submissive subjects. But as the vices and oppression 
 of kings built up the power of the papacy, so the vices 
 and arrogance of the popes destroyed it. The " Refor- 
 mation of the Church in its head and members " was 
 demanded on all sides, and yet it was felt that Rome 
 would never reform itself, because it still believed that 
 the whole of Europe continued to acknowledge the 
 
other Religions Comnmuions. 195 
 
 temporal and spiritual supremacy of the Pope, which, 
 as Fuller quaintly says, was "the epidemical disease" 
 in those days. We have been able to trace the historic 
 continuity of the Church of England {Ecclesia Aiiglicaiia, 
 as it is described in Magna Charta) from its organization 
 under Archbishop Theodore, and its completer organi- 
 zation under Lanfranc in the reign of William I., 
 when England itself became consolidated under one 
 king, and under Anselm in the reigns of William II. 
 and Henry I., to the time of the passing of the Act of 
 Supremacy in the reign of Henry VIII., when it is some- 
 times said that the old Church disappeared, and a new 
 Church, the present Church of England, was founded. 
 The most sufficient answer that can probably be made 
 to this romantic assertion is to say that neither the king 
 nor either of the three estates of the realm (the clergy, 
 the peers, or the commons), at that time were aware 
 that they were doing anything so marvellous as found- 
 ing a new Church. In fact, they took special pains to 
 show that nothing was further from their thoughts than 
 any intention to found a new Church. We may not be 
 careful to defend the morals of the monarch, or the 
 avarice of his courtiers, or the methods which were 
 .subsequently adopted in carrying out the reformation 
 which was so urgently demanded. The character, the 
 acts, even the motives of Henry VIII., except that he 
 confiscated property which ought to have gone to the 
 Church, do not affect us at all ; the reformation under 
 him was only a turning-point in the history of our 
 Church, and Henry the sign-post between the old and 
 the new paths. The Act of Submission and the Act 
 
196 The Church of England and 
 
 of Supremacy merely retransferred the temporal head- 
 ship of the Church from the Pope, who was regarded 
 as a foreign potentate, to the sovereign of England, 
 and the spiritual headship of the Church from the Pope 
 and his legate to the Archbishop of Canterbury as 
 Primate of all England. And the transference in each 
 case was onlj- a return to what had been the acknow- 
 ledged position of both king and primate in earlier 
 times. The Clerg}- in their Convocations acknowledged 
 the chief power of the king's majesty in all causes eccle- 
 siastical and civil in the person of Henrj-, as the clerg}", 
 after the Xorman conquest, had acknowledged it in 
 the person of William. And if it be said that the 
 clerg}- Avere forced or bribed into submission in the 
 former case, there is sufficient evidence to show that 
 neither the offer of rewards nor the fear of punishment 
 was wanting in the latter. But the clerg}- insisted on 
 adding the necessarj- qualification " so far as is per- 
 mitted by the law of Christ " [qumiiiiui per Christi legem 
 licet, lest they should seem to have yielded too much 
 to any claims the king might hereafter advance to in- 
 termeddle in purely spiritual matters. This important 
 saving clause was dishonestly omitted in the Act of 
 Supremacy, but the Act itself was repealed in the reigrt 
 of ^lar}-, and was not revived b\- Elizabeth. 
 
 \^'hen the royal supremac}- had been secured, and 
 the revenues of the monasteries had been transferred to 
 the crown, Henrj-'s interest in the Reformation waxed 
 cold. He had fed his ambition and gratified his avarice, 
 but it is said that his courtiers and nobles derived more 
 benefit from the spoliation than himself. The Church, 
 
other Religious Communions. 197 
 
 having regained some of its ancient liberties, remained 
 the same as before. It preserved all the essentials of 
 a true Church, the orderly succession of a canonically 
 ordained ministry, the valid administration of the Sac- 
 raments, and the public confession of the Christian faith. 
 Questions of doctrine had not yet come with any dis- 
 tinctness to the front. Henry had declared again and 
 again that it was not his intention to make any change 
 in doctrine, or to deviate in any way from the Catholic 
 faith of Christendom. Even Archbishop) Cranmer, who 
 had at first sworn allegiance to both the Pope and the 
 king, and was afterwards regarded as the leader of the 
 Reformers, is said to have aimed at nothing more 
 earnestly than to preserve the historical and spiritual 
 continuity of the Church. And so, in later years, 
 Elizabeth declared, in her reply to the emperor, that 
 " there was no new faith propagated in England, and 
 no religion set up but that which was commanded by 
 our Saviour, practised by the primitive Church, and 
 unanimously approved by the fathers of the best an- 
 tiquity." And on another occasion " my aim is to 
 bind myself and my people to Christ, and not to the 
 Roman See." 
 
 From what has been said in this and the previous 
 lecture we may gather up these facts : — 
 
 (i) That the spiritual origin of the Church of Eng- 
 land — that is, the succession of the episcopate from which 
 is derived, and in which is included, the priesthood, or 
 presbyterate, and the diaconatc — may be traced {a) 
 through the Irish or Scottish Church, and perhaps 
 through the British Church, to the Gallican Church, 
 
1 98 The CJiiirch of England and 
 
 and through this again to the Church of Ephesus and the 
 apostolate of St. Paul and St. John ; and {b) through 
 the Church of Rome to the apostolate of St. Paul and, 
 as some affirm, of St. Peter. (2) That the continuity of 
 this spiritual succession through the episcopate has come 
 dow n unbroken through Archbishop Parker to the pre- 
 sent time. (3) That the first attempts at an outward 
 organization of the Church were effected b}- Archbishop 
 Theodore, who introduced a form of the parochial 
 system, and secured the constitution of new episcopal sees, 
 placed in subordination to the See of Canterbury, which 
 from that time became the centre of Church authority 
 and unity in England. (4) That the organization and 
 unity of the Church preceded and prepared the wa\- for 
 the organization and unity of the kingdom. (5) That 
 of this kingdom and Church of England the crown was 
 held to be the supreme head in all causes ecclesiastical 
 and civil. (6) That this Church of England, even when 
 in visible communion with the See of Rome, was a 
 national Church claiming to exercise an independent 
 jurisdiction under the primacy of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury'. (7) That although the rights of the crown, 
 the liberties of the people, and the independence of the 
 Church were subject to encroachments on the part of 
 the popes and their legates during those ages in which 
 the Roman pontiffs were able to carry into practice those 
 theories of their jurisdiction which had been formulized 
 by Hildebrand (Gregor\' VII.;, }-et the constitutional 
 struggles which began in England in the reign of 
 Henry II. and culminated in the reigns of Henry VIII, 
 and Elizabeth, brought about the entire restitution of 
 
othej' Religious Comimniions. 199 
 
 the rightful supremacy of the crown, and the independ- 
 ence of the Church. (8) That the Church of En_<2[land 
 was not for the first time constituted or founded at the 
 time of the Reformation, or by the arbitrary' will of 
 Henry VIII., but that this Church, already in existence, 
 and acknowledged in all state documents, as well in 
 Magna Charta as in the Act of Supremacy, as the English 
 or Anglican Church, although for some time partly in 
 subjection to the See and Court of Rome, has preserved 
 its historical continuity and its outward organization. 
 (9) That the acknowledgment of the supremacy of the 
 Bishop of Rome is no more an essential mark of a true 
 Church than the acknowledgment of the supremacy of 
 the Bi.'hop of Antioch or of Jerusalem. (10) That the 
 abolition of the papal supremacy over the Church and 
 realm of England was not effected by the sole despotic 
 will of Henry and the Acts of his Parliament, but that 
 the Convocations of Canterbury and York, and the 
 Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, endorsed the 
 Acts of the State. And as at that time both the king, 
 the leers, the Commons, and the clergy were in visible 
 communion with the See of Rome, it may be said that 
 the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in England was 
 abolished by the Romanists themselves. (11) That the 
 abolition of the papal supremacy did not immediately 
 involve any important change in the doctrine, but only, 
 in some respects, in the discipline of the Church. 
 
 It is sufficient for my present purpose to have shown 
 that the link of historical continuity in the Church of 
 England was not broken by the Acts of Submission and 
 Supremac}' in the reign of Henry VIII., because it is at 
 
200 TJu' Chu7'ch of England ajid 
 
 this point that we are assailed from two opposite 
 quarters. We are told, on the one side, that the pre- 
 sent Church of England is a new Church, having no 
 connection with the old Church ; that it originated at 
 and dates from the time of the Reformation ; that 
 it was founded by Henry in defiance of one pope, 
 because he annulled the decree of his divorce from 
 Katharine, his brother Arthur's widow, whom a former 
 pope had granted him a dispensation to marr\-, notwith- 
 standing a protest from Archbishop Warham that it was 
 contrary' to the Word of God. And we are told, on the 
 other side, that the present Church of England was 
 established at the time of the Reformation by Henry as 
 a State Church, of which the sovereign, layman :hough 
 he be, is the supreme head ; that it is an Act-of-Parlia- 
 ment Church, and that it is a State-paid Church, and, bj' 
 consequence, that as (it is said) it was established and 
 endowed by the State (when ever}- member df the 
 legislature was required to be a member of the Cnurch 
 of England), so it may and ought to be disestablished 
 and disendowed by the State (when now it is not 
 required that any member of the legislature, excep: the 
 Lord Chancellor, shall be a member of that Church^ I 
 propose to consider and endeavour to answer tiese 
 latter assertions in the lectures which are to follow. As 
 to the former class of assertions, I have only to add to 
 what has been already said, that, in order to show there 
 was no intention on the part of Henr^-, much less on the 
 part of the clerg>- or the Parhament, to found in any 
 sense a new Church, it was expressly declared in an Act 
 passed in the year 1533, that "it is not intended to force 
 
other Religions Comrimnions. 
 
 20I 
 
 the Church of England into an uncatholic position, or to 
 change its character as a sound branch of Christ's ^^oly 
 Church." It is on this, as on other accounts, that we 
 maintain the spiritual and historical continuity of the 
 Church of England at the present day with the Church 
 of England both after, and at, and before what is com- 
 monly called the Reformation. 
 
202 The Church of England and 
 
 LECTURE XI. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND — ITS ESTABLISHMENT. 
 
 It is constantly asserted that the present Church of 
 England is a State Church, or an Act-of-Parliament 
 Church. When we inquire at what period in our 
 national history the foundation of this State Church was 
 laid, we are told that it was founded at the Reformation 
 in the reign of Henry VIII. When we inquire further 
 for the public records or State Papers which set forth the 
 foundation of this Church, we are perhaps referred to the 
 Act of Submission, and the Act of Supremacy, and 
 the Act of Restraint of Appeals, or perhaps chiefly to 
 the second of these. Did not Henry, it is said, require 
 himself to be described as " Supreme Head of the 
 Church, i.e. of the clergy of England " ? We have seen 
 with what an important qualification — so far as is 
 allowed by the law of Christ — the clergy, in conceding 
 this title, guarded against its misuse. And this title, 
 while accepted by Queen Mary, was repudiated by 
 Elizabeth as "absurd," and exchanged by her in her Act 
 of Supremacy for the title of " Supreme Governor." 
 So that it is not a legal title of the sovereign at the pre- 
 sent day. Henry's own gloss upon his own phrase was 
 
otJier Rcligiotis Commtinions. 203 
 
 that the headship was only over " all the people of Eng- 
 land, ecclesiastical as well as temporal." As, however, 
 the Act of Supremacy was repealed by Mary, and was 
 not revived by Elizabeth, it in no way affects us now, 
 whatever its provisions may have been. In the primary 
 Reformation Statute of Henry, which " restrained 
 appeals to the Pope," and which still remains in force, 
 since it has not been repealed, the claim on the part of 
 Henry to possess " plenary, whole, and entire power and 
 jurisdiction within this realm in all causes," etc., was 
 directed to the exclusion not of the English Church, 
 but of the Pope, and was in part suggested b)- the 
 appeal of Queen Katharine in the divorce case. The 
 statute, too, declares that England is an independent 
 empire, composed of a " spiritualty" and a " temporally," 
 or " Church and State ; " and that that part of the body 
 politic called the " spiritualty," being usually called the 
 English Church, is sufficient and meet of itself, without 
 the intermeddling of any exterior person, to administer 
 all spiritual offices and duties." I^^rom an examination 
 of these State Papers two legitimate conclusions may be 
 drawn, (i) That by acknowledging its title, the ex- 
 istence of the Church of England at the time when these 
 Acts were drawn up and passed, is taken for granted ; 
 and (2) that as this same Church of England is described 
 as that which " hath been and is also at this hour 
 sufficient," etc., the spiritual and historic continuity of 
 that Church is assured. There is, therefore, no evidence 
 to show that a new institution, called the Church of 
 England, was founded at the Reformation in the reign 
 of Henry VHI. Put the Reformation is, as we have 
 
204 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 seen, a term or phrase which cannot fairly be limited to 
 so short a period as that of even one reign. The 
 Reformation of the Church may be considered under 
 two aspects — (i) that which has reference to discipline 
 or government, and (2) that which has reference to 
 doctrine. It is commonly believed that the question of 
 change of doctrine was the first object of the Reforma- 
 tion. Historically, the case was exactly reversed. The 
 first object of the English Reformation was to throw off 
 the gross abuses of the Roman Court, which had grown 
 up in such rank luxuriance from the days of the later 
 and weaker Norman kings, and had called forth pro- 
 tests, loud and vigorous, from reformers before the 
 Reformation. Such were Archbishops Rich and Brad- 
 wardine of Canterbury, Sewell and Thursby of York, and 
 Fitz Ralph of Armagh, Bishop Grostete (Greathead) of 
 Lincoln, all in communion with the See of Rome ; the 
 author of " Piers Ploughman's Vision," a work of the 
 fourteenth century, ascribed to Langland, which exposes 
 in severe terms the corruptions of the Church ; and 
 Wiclif, who, perhaps with pardonable exaggeration, has 
 been called " The Morning Star of the Reformation." 
 
 The same cry for reformation in the discipline and 
 government of the Church was again raised in the reign 
 of Henry VH. by the founders of the new learning, e.g. 
 Erasmus, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge ; Colet, 
 Dean of St. Paul's and founder of St. Paul's School ; 
 and Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor, author of 
 " The Utopia " (Nowhere). The aim of the new learning 
 may be summed up under two heads — (i) a reform of 
 life rather than a reform of doctrine ; (2) a sound 
 
other Religions Coniimmions. 205 
 
 Biblical criticism, and freedom of inquiry. Nor must 
 •\ve forget Wolsey, the notable cardinal and statesman 
 in the reign of Henry VIII., who saw the necessity for 
 reforming the government of the Church, and matured 
 his great plans for this the chief object of his life, but, 
 dying before he could accomplish them, left the inheri- 
 tance of his master-mind to be curtailed and dissipated 
 by the vulgar meanness of a monarch who sacrificed 
 his truest friend and adviser for not ridding him of his 
 first wife, as he afterwards sacrificed Thomas Cromwell, 
 his vicegerent, for getting him an ugly wife. But if the 
 Church of England was not founded at this epoch in the 
 period of the Reformation, was it founded at any other 
 epoch For the period of the Reformation may be 
 reckoned, so far as actual changes in the constitution 
 and doctrine and ritual of the Church are concerned, 
 from the passing of the various Acts affecting the relations 
 between the English Church and the Court of Rome in 
 the reign of Henry VIII., that is, let us say, from 1 531 
 to the settlement which was effected in the reign of 
 Charles II. by the last Act of Uniformity in i66r, which 
 practically remains in force at the present day. We may, 
 in some respects, except the few years of Mary's reign, in 
 which a return was made to the old service-books, and 
 most of the Acts affecting the Church, which had been 
 passed in the reigns of her father Henry and her brother 
 Edward, were repealed. But this period was of too 
 short a duration to effect much change in the constitu- 
 tion of the Church, and the reformed position of the 
 Church was resumed under Elizabeth. And to show 
 how this reformed position was accepted by the Church, 
 
2o6 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 it may be mentioned that, according to an ecclesiastical 
 visitation in the reign of Elizabeth in 1559, out of a body 
 of clergy to the number of nearh- ten thousand, only one- 
 hundred and eighty-nine — less than two per cent. — refused 
 to accept the revised Prayer-book, which the Pope (Pius 
 IV.) also declared himself willing to allow if the queen 
 would acknowledge his supremacy. We may also except 
 that period in English historj' when Puritanism was 
 triumphant, i.e. from the Long Parliament in the reign 
 of Charles I. to the restoration of Charles II., during 
 which time '' England was virtually governed by the 
 sword, and the republic under the protectorate of Crom- 
 well was in reality^ a despotism ; '' when the use of the 
 Book of Common Prayer was regarded as a penal 
 offence, and the " Director}- for Public Worship " re- 
 placed it ; when benefices were filled with men who, being 
 either Presb>i:erians or Independents or Baptists, had not 
 received ordination at the hands of a bishop, but from 
 twenty-eight commissioners called " triers ; " and when the 
 Church, if it be only an institution for religious purposes 
 established by Act of Parliament, must have altogether 
 ceased to exist. Yet at neither of these periods was the 
 spiritual or historical continuity of the Church broken so 
 as to necessitate the founding of a new Church. " The 
 only time in the history of England when there was the 
 nearest approach to such an Act as re-establishment of 
 the Church was at the restoration of Charles II. But 
 the form Avhich that Act then took, the revival of some- 
 thing old, something which was held to have been 
 illegally abolished, gives the Act a wholly different 
 character." The Book of Common Prayer was, under 
 
other Religious Comimmions. 207 
 
 the Act of Uniformity, ordered to be again used in 
 churches. The bishops were restored to their sees, the 
 incomes of which had been temporarily sequestrated ; and 
 the incumbents of benefices, on the restoration of the 
 monarchy, had the option of retaining them, on accept- 
 ing episcopal ordination, and conforming to the revised 
 Liturgy. Those who, from conscientious scruples, as it 
 is supposed, refused to comply with those conditions, 
 were ejected from their benefices. The number of these, 
 according to the most trustworthy accounts, was not 
 two thousand, but about eight hundred. When the 
 Church of England was restored, together with the king 
 and peers of England, by a House of Commons "more 
 zealous for royalty than the king, and more zealous 
 for episcopacy than the bishop," episcopacy and the 
 Prayer-book were necessarily restored with it. Thus 
 there was no new Church and no new system, but only 
 the old one revived. If we cannot fix upon any time in 
 the history of England when the parliamentary records 
 or State Papers can be appealed to in evidence to show 
 that the Church of England was founded by an Act of 
 Parliament, that is, by the State, or even by the sole 
 despotic will of any Sovereign ; if we have good reason 
 for maintaining, from the evidence already produced, 
 that the present Church of England has preserved a 
 continuity of life from the earliest period of England's 
 authentic history ; if the history of the Church of England 
 is co-extensive with the history of the people of England, 
 through all the phases of its development and progress ; 
 if the Church of England is the oldest institution in the 
 realm, having had a history before the English crown 
 
2o8 Tlie Church of England and 
 
 was settled, before the basis of the EngHsh constitution 
 was formulated, and before the English Parliament 
 came into existence ; — then we may say with truth that 
 the Church is older than the State, is prior in time as an 
 organized institution, and cannot owe its origin to the 
 state. And yet it is rightly felt and acknowledged that 
 there is in England some kind of union or alliance between 
 Church and State ; and that there is a sense in which the 
 Church may be regarded as established by law — that is, 
 by Acts of Parliament. What, we may ask, is the origin 
 of this opinion t How did the religious communion 
 which represents the Church of Christ in this countr}' 
 come to be eventual]}- the recognized Church of the 
 nation — the national Church ? The answer to this 
 question is, that it became so simply because the people 
 of this land having, in the days of our Saxon and pagan 
 ancestors, received its teaching respecting the one faith, 
 adopted its mode of divine worship, and submitted to 
 its discipline, gradually, notwithstanding occasional re- 
 lapses into paganism, admitted its claims to their alle- 
 giance, and accepted its spiritual authority. Then the 
 rulers of the various kingdoms or lordships into which 
 England was divided by conquest, when they had 
 become Christians through reception into the Church 
 baptism, recognized by their public and official acts the 
 claims of the Church to whose spiritual government and 
 ordinances they had submitted. Thus the union of the 
 Church and the State in each kingdom was a union of 
 gradual growth and strength. It arose out of the 
 historical circumstances and mutual necessities of the 
 Church and nation as they developed in the different 
 
other Religious Communions. 209 
 
 periods and phases of their respective histories. This 
 union of Church and State was still further cemented at 
 the accession of William I., when the whole kingdom 
 came more completely under the rule of one monarch, 
 and the Church of England took its position in this 
 country as the national Church, under the primacy of 
 the Archbishop of Canterbury. We have seen by what 
 means it came to pass that the idea of a national 
 Church, in communion with the See of Rome, but, 
 acting at first independently of Rome, and in accor- 
 dance with the canons of its own provincial synods, 
 became weakened during the reigns of the early 
 Norman kings, until its freedom was once more secured 
 by the Great Charter, and its independence asserted 
 again and again during succeeding dynasties. And 
 what was meant by a national Church was simply this, 
 that the Church of England was to be regarded as the 
 authorized representation of the Catholic Church to the 
 people of this nation. The development and exten- 
 sion of England's empire have, to a considerable extent, 
 modified the application of this principle. They have 
 rendered it as difficult to say what is a national Church 
 as it is difficult to say in what nationality consists. 
 Perhaps " the only definition of a nation which will satisfy 
 the rigorous demands of modern scientific criticism is 
 ' a polity organized under one supreme head, and con- 
 stituted of individual persons, who, by conquest, or 
 marriage or treaty, or by the combination of either of 
 these methods, have become socially and politically 
 united.' From the terms of this definition, it will be seen 
 that unity of religion can no longer enter into the essence 
 
 P 
 
2 lO 
 
 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 of a nation." Are we, then, entitled now to call the Church 
 of England a national Church ? In a certain sense we 
 are entitled. For the principal statutes which have been 
 passed affecting the position of the Church of England 
 or her ministers have been enacted with the consent 
 of the clerg}^ in their Convocations, by the representa- 
 tives of the laity in their House of Commons, and by 
 the lords spiritual and temporal — that is, by the three 
 estates of the realm, and they have received the ratify- 
 ing signature of the sovereign as supreme governor in all 
 causes ecclesiastical and civil. 
 
 But the statutes or Acts of Parliament to which I 
 have referred affect, it must be obser\-ed, only the 
 temporal position of the Church of England. They in 
 no way affect the foundations of the faith, for it is not 
 within the province of any particular or national Church 
 to alter or tamper with these. " The authority of any 
 national Church is expressly limited, by the terms of the 
 thirty-fourth Article of Religion, to variation of practice 
 in things non-essential, i.e. to rites and ceremonies of 
 the Church." To any one who will compare the structure 
 of the Book of Common Prayer at present in use in the 
 Church of England with the ancient forms, or even with 
 the older English uses, it will be evident that the 
 principle of variations in form has been widely, and some 
 may think too widely, admitted. At the same time 
 there was a wise adherence to " ancient customs." The 
 old forms in spirit remained the same, except where 
 they were actually and advisedly altered, and thus the 
 continuity of the Church before and after the Reforma- 
 tion, as well in the main features of its mode of divine 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 211 
 
 worship, and in all essential doctrines, as in the spiritual 
 succession of the ministry and its outward historical 
 constitution, was clearly and vigorously maintained. 
 The Church before and after the Reformation differs 
 only, as Archbishop Bramwell has said, as " a garden 
 weeded from a garden unweeded," 
 
 The action which was taken in the reign of Henry 
 VIII., not by the arbitrary will of the king himself, 
 as is so often asserted, but by the three estates of the 
 realm, was the endeavour to restore to the Church its 
 national character and its spiritual independence — to 
 secure to it the exercise of its rightful liberties ; to free 
 it and the whole realm from the usurpation of a foreign 
 jurisdiction ; and to bring it into certain relations with 
 the State in which it had not stood before. 
 
 This was the first work of the English Reformation. 
 This was the intention of the Convocations of the clergy. 
 This was the intention of the laity in their Parliament. 
 That their intention would be subsequently, in great 
 part, marred and maimed by the despotism and avarice 
 and cruelty of the king and his advisers could not have 
 been foreseen. It is only, then, in the form which I have 
 described it that the Church can be said, in a modern 
 sense, to have been established by law or by Act of 
 Parliament. I say in "a modern sense," because the 
 phrases " establishment," the " Established Church," or 
 "the Church by law established," never once occur in 
 any of the Acts passed during any part of the period of 
 the Reformation. These terms were applied at a later 
 period, when the controversies of the time had brought 
 out into greater prominence the legal status of the 
 
2 1 2 The Church of Englajid atid 
 
 national Church as opposed to what were then held to 
 be the illegal assemblies of Roman and Protestant 
 separatists. The use of these phrases dates from after 
 the restoration of Charles II., and the phrase "estab- 
 lished by law," as applied to the Church of England, 
 became confirmed in its use after the passing of the 
 Toleration Act, 1689, and by more recent Acts. But 
 as before the year 1568 there were no organized 
 communities of Nonconformists — that is, persons who 
 declined, or were forbidden by an authority which they 
 held it a matter of conscience to obey, to conform to the 
 worship and discipline of the Church of England — the 
 question of the toleration of differing religious com- 
 munions was not a practical one. There was no neces- 
 sity to draw the distinction between a religious com- 
 munion, which might be conveniently described as 
 " established " and those which were unestablished. 
 
 And even in the sixteenth century, when the con- 
 sequences of difference in religious worship, and in 
 articles of religion, and in the principles of Church 
 government became the great question of the day, it 
 was held that the Church and the nation ought to be 
 one, and that dissent in religion ought to be put down 
 by law as much as sedition in politics. " It no more 
 occurred to the men of that day that there could be 
 any other religious communion alongside the Church 
 established by law than that there could be any other 
 government alongside the monarchy established by 
 law. So it was recognized as the duty of the magis- 
 trates to enforce the law in ecclesiastical as well as in 
 civil matters." It was their duty to "' exercise justice as 
 
other Religions Communions. 213 
 
 well as to maintain truth." And to the men of the 
 sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to " maintain truth " 
 meant, at different times, to burn Unitarians, to flay 
 Papists ahve, to imprison Independents and Presbyte- 
 rians and, when the turn of the wheel came, to proscribe 
 and ruin Episcopalians under the pretence of their being 
 "scandalous and malignant clergy." 
 
 "It cannot, then, be said, with due regard to historical 
 truth, that the Church of England was founded at the 
 time of the Reformation, or even at the time of the 
 restoration of the monarchy. Nor can it be said that 
 either Henry or Elizabeth, having disestablished an 
 older Church, proceeded to establish a new Church ; that 
 having chosen that form of religion which they thought 
 best, they established it, endowed it, granted certain 
 privileges to it, and clothed it with a certain dignity, 
 but by way of compensation or balance subjected it 
 also to a strict control on the part of the State and the 
 Sovereign ; that when they might have established the 
 Roman Church, or the Church of Luther, or the Church 
 of Calvin, they devised, as became the monarchs of 
 an island realm, some institution differing from the 
 Churches of all other countries, and called into being 
 the Church of England." 
 
 " It may suit the Roman controversialist to assert that 
 the bishops and priests of the Church of England are 
 no bishops and priests, and that the sacraments ad- 
 ministered by them are no sacraments, because they 
 have been parted from that centre of spiritual unity 
 which alone can give their acts any spiritual force. It 
 may suit those Protestant Nonconformists who regard 
 
214 '^^''^ Church of England and 
 
 the continuity of a Church as depending rather on the 
 profession of certain doctrines than on an historical and 
 spiritual succession, to say that everything was so 
 entirely changed in the sixteenth century that what was 
 done was really to destroy an old Church and to set up 
 a new one, and that this new institution is the Church of 
 England established by law, the State Church created by 
 Act of Parliament, endowed by the State, and controlled 
 by the State. Both these assertions may be considered 
 as theological views of the matter. It is certain that they 
 are not supported by reference to any legal or historical 
 documentary evidence. At the root of these and the 
 like assertions lies the delusion that there were, or are up 
 to the present time, two distinct bodies in this country, 
 called respectively " Church and State," which are 
 capable of entering into a covenant with one another, 
 or making a kind of bargain. For the State must mean 
 the nation in the person of its hereditary and elected 
 legislative assemblies, and the Church must mean either 
 the whole nation, when the nation is of one mind on 
 religious matters, or else part of the nation when there 
 are several religious bodies in the same nation. The 
 common way of talking about Church and State comes 
 from days when people used to talk of the government 
 of a nation as if it were the nation itself, and of the 
 clergy as if they constituted the Church. According 
 to the terms of this supposed bargain, the Church, it is 
 thought, receives some special protection and a large 
 measure of patronage from the State ; while, on the 
 other hand, it has to submit to a large measure of 
 control from the State. The Church, in return for 
 
other Religious Communions. 2 1 5 
 
 the protection and favour of the State, undertakes, it 
 is thought, for its part to supply rehgious instruction 
 and pubHc forms of divine worship for the entire 
 nation ; and the State enables the Church to do this by 
 means of large endowments and special privileges." But 
 all this is, as we have seen, a delusion, for there never 
 was a time, of which there is any record, when the 
 nation or its rulers made up their minds that it would be 
 a good thing to set up an established Church of England 
 any more than there was a time when they made up 
 their minds that it would be a good thing to set up 
 government by a Parliament. There never was a time 
 when Parliament said to the Church of England, " We 
 will set up a hierarchy ; we will appoint a clergy ; we 
 will provide churches ; we will vote funds for their main- 
 tenance." But it may be said, Does not the State legislate 
 for the Church as for an institution established by Act of 
 Parliament ? To this question it may be replied that, 
 according to the ancient theory of the constitution, as in 
 some sense settled by the acknowledgment in the reign 
 of Henry VIII. of the supremacy of the Crown de facto, as 
 it had been previously acknowledged de jure, the clergy, 
 as one of the estates of the realm were summoned to 
 meet in their Convocations in order to tax themselves for 
 their share in the support of the government. And this 
 right of meeting involved the right of petitioning and, 
 within certain limits, of legislating for themselves. The 
 exercise of these rights continued until 1664, when the 
 taxation of the clergy was included in that prepared 
 by the House of Commons, and as a compensation 
 they obtained the privilege of voting for members of 
 Parliament. 
 
2 1 6 The Church of England and 
 
 When questions of doctrine and ritual, such as those 
 \vhich were connected with the first English Prayer- 
 book in the reign of Edward VI., and with those re- 
 visions which took place under Elizabeth and Charles II., 
 had been submitted to and discussed by the clergy in 
 their Convocations, the resolutions which they passed, 
 or the recommendations they proposed, were brought 
 before the Houses of Parliament, and upon the joint 
 agreement of these three estates, the royal assent was 
 added to the resolutions embodied in an Act of Parlia- 
 ment, and this became the law of the land. These 
 proceedings were in full accordance with the terms of 
 the constitution. Here were representative clergy and 
 the representative Church laity legislating as the nation 
 in its religious aspect for the nation. I am ready to 
 admit that the legislation by the Houses of Parliament, 
 as constituted at the present day, upon matters affecting 
 the doctrine, or discipline, or ritual of the Church of 
 England is, in some respects, an anomaly. I say in 
 some respects, because if the Church through its spiritual 
 courts were to enforce doctrine or discipline on its 
 ministers or members by subjecting them to penal con- 
 sequences, the consent of the civil court, as representing 
 for the time being the supremacy of the Crown, to inflict 
 the punishment, whether it be loss of goods or loss 
 of personal liberty, fine or imprisonment, must in some 
 form be inevitably obtained. And this would happen 
 whether the Church was, as it is now, in some sense 
 established by law, or whether it were disestablished. 
 
 The legislation in Parliament which has taken place 
 respecting the Church of England, from the time of the 
 
other Religious Comtnmiions. 
 
 21) 
 
 suppression of Convocation in 17 17 to its revival in 
 1857, hasafifected chiefly the temporahties of the Church, 
 as, for instance, the various Church Building Acts, the 
 division of large Parishes Acts, the establishn:ient of the 
 Ecclesiastical Commission for rearranging and redis- 
 tributing the revenues of the Church, the Pluralites and 
 Cathedral Acts, and the Tithe Commutation Act. But 
 there have been other Acts passed by Parliament which, 
 it is thought by wise and good men, are calculated to 
 interfere with the spiritual authority of the Church, and 
 to undermine the influence of its teaching, e.g. the 
 Divorce Act of 1857. There are also other Acts, passed 
 by Parliament alone, upon which there may be a reason- 
 able difference of opinion as to their ultimate effect in 
 weakening the influence of the Church. They are ad- 
 mitted to have been originally introduced more to 
 soothe " the backbone of a political party " than in the 
 interest of members of the Church. Such are the 
 Compulsory Church Rates Abolition Bill, the University 
 Tests Acts, the Education Acts, and the Burial Laws 
 Amendment Acts. 
 
 And there is another Act which specially affects 
 the clergy in their ministration of divine worship — the 
 Public Worship Regulation (or, as I think I have seen it 
 called, " Degradation ") Act. This Act, unlike several 
 of the others which have been mentioned, was sub- 
 mitted to the consideration of the Convocations of the 
 clergy. But it was passed in Parliament in opposition 
 to the voice of the Convocations. The Prime Minister 
 of the day (Mr. Disraeli) described it as " an Act for 
 putting down Ritualism," which he characterized as the 
 
2i8 The Church of England and 
 
 " Mass in IMasquerade ;" and it is not unlikely that he 
 was sufficiently foreseeing to be aware that while it 
 might serve for the nonce to soothe the " backbone of 
 another political party," it would not for long retain the 
 powers with which it was so amply endowed. From 
 the time of the passing of that Act, the cause which it 
 was sent forth to overthrow rapidly increased in strength 
 and favour. 
 
 The late Bishop of London, in his recent charge, said 
 that " a painful experience of ten years had convinced 
 him that this Act was a mistake." Ten years before 
 this, the Bishop was one of the supporters of this 
 measure, the motive of which was never plain even to 
 the framers of it, beyond the fact that it was prepared as 
 a bill " to put down Ritualism." Ten years later he tells 
 his clergy that the cure for excessive ritual is rather to be 
 sought in the "supply of defects from which excesses are 
 the natural and certain reaction than in persecution." 
 Ten years ago this Act was defended and passed on the 
 ground that it would be a protection against a con- 
 spiracy on the part of some of the clergj', who were 
 resolved to drive unwilling Englishmen into the fold of 
 Rome. Ten years later it is admitted by all reasonable 
 persons, who have not allowed their judgment to be 
 warped by fanaticism, that the unremitting exertions of 
 the clergy for the best part of a life in the most un- 
 promising and unsavoury localities were the surest proof 
 they could offer of their faithfulness and loyalty to the 
 spiritual mother whose arms had borne them, and to 
 whose service they had devoted all their energies, and 
 in many cases all their worldly substance. 
 
other Religious Communions. 219 
 
 I am not prepared to defend, and I am not required 
 to defend, the entire course of parliamentary action with 
 reference to the Church. There is no object in denying 
 that the Church has been often hindered in her spiritual 
 work by the opposition or by the indifference of Parlia- 
 ment, even when Parliament might still have been entitled 
 to be considered as the representative assembly of the 
 laity of the Church. But since the union with Scotland, 
 and the union with Ireland, and the admission of per- 
 sons belonging to any kind of religious persuasion, or to 
 none, this aspect of the English Parliament has been 
 wholly destroyed. In fact, as we have already seen, 
 unity in religion, or in the outward forms of religion, no 
 longer enters into the essence of the nation. It has 
 consequently become a question of practical politics, 
 how far a Parliament so diversely composed ought to 
 be asked to legislate on ecclesiastical subjects. And it 
 would seem to be one of the most pressing questions 
 for the future, and one which should command the 
 most patient attention of our rulers in the Church, 
 whether the time has not arrived when a House of 
 Representative Lay Communicants might be elected 
 to consult with the Houses of Convocation in both 
 provinces on all matters affecting the discipline, and the 
 organization, and the financial administration of the 
 Church of England. The Imperial Parliament, as we 
 are often reminded, is generally loth to discuss ques- 
 tions of ecclesiastical polity, and yet there are ecclesias- 
 tical questions affecting the temporal position of the 
 subjects of this realm which can only be authoritatively 
 determined by the will of Parliament and the Sovereign 
 
2 20 The Church of England and 
 
 acting through the civil courts. The adoption of some 
 such method as has been suggested would be only a 
 mode of returning to the ancient theory of the constitu- 
 tion, and would obviate many present difficulties in the 
 relation between the Church and the Parliament. 
 
 I will now gather up the chief conclusions at which 
 we have so far arrived. 
 
 1. That there was no one act, restricted within the 
 limits of a short period, which can be historically called 
 " The Reformation," but that the Reformation was the 
 gradual development of a long series of acts. 
 
 2. That there was no moment during the Reforma- 
 tion when, and no Act of Parliament by which, the 
 Church of England was ever established as the State 
 Church. Still less was there any Act by which one 
 Church was disestablished and another, and that a 
 new Church, established in its stead. 
 
 3. That the only sense in which the Church can be 
 properly said to have been established was by the 
 acknowledgment of the royal supremacy on the part 
 of the clergy and the people together, constituting the 
 Church. In the same sense it may be said that Parlia- 
 ment or the peerage was established. 
 
 4. That it is not historically correct to speak of 
 Church and State as if they were two distinct institu- 
 tions capable of making terms or a bargain with one 
 another, or that any such bargain or covenant has been 
 made. 
 
 5. That the expression "Established Church" first 
 arose as the result of differences in religion, when there 
 were several religious communions in the land. It then 
 
other Religious Communions. 221 
 
 began to mean a religious body which stands in a special 
 relation to the State or to Parliament, in distinction 
 from those religious bodies which have been protected 
 and allowed by the Act of Toleration. 
 
 6. That the Church of England as a national Church 
 has grown up with the people of England like every 
 other institution — like Parliament itself It has come to 
 be what it is through the circumstances of our national 
 history. 
 
 7. That the discussion and legislation on questions 
 affecting the Church of England by the House of Par- 
 liament is a remnant of the ancient theory of the 
 English constitution, which regarded Parliament as the 
 Church of England in its lay capacity ; but that since 
 the union of England with Scotland and Ireland, and 
 the abolition of all religious tests of communion, this 
 theory is no longer consonant with actual facts. 
 
 8. That since the laity of the Church of England 
 have been in this way deprived of their only constitu- 
 tional assembly, it is a question for our rulers to 
 determine whether some other form of representative 
 assembly should not be provided, through which the 
 opinions of the laity on matters of discipline and organi- 
 zation and finance could be given and published. The 
 rights of Parliament and the crown to interfere, through 
 the civil courts, in cases affecting the temporal position or 
 property of all subjects of the realm — whether members 
 of the Church of England or Nonconformists of any 
 description — must still remain supreme. 
 
222 The Church of England and 
 
 LECTURE XII. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND — ITS ENDOWMENTS. 
 
 The next subject in connection with the Church of 
 England to which I ask your attention is the history of 
 its endowments and property. We have seen that there 
 is an erroneous popular notion that the Church was at 
 some time or other — date unknown, and likely to remain 
 so — founded by the State, that is, by Act of Parliament. 
 And there is also an erroneous popular notion that the 
 Church was at some time or other — date equally unknown 
 — endowed by the State. Here I may observe that the 
 common, and it may be for certain purposes convenient, 
 expression, " Church and State," is very apt to convey a 
 wrong impression. If the " Church " be taken to repre- 
 sent the nation in its religious aspect, and the " State " be 
 taken to represent the nation in its political aspect, the 
 distinction between the use of the two terms becomes 
 sufficiently clear. Upon this theory, however, the State 
 could not well be said to establish or to endow the 
 Church, for that would be, in effect, to say that it estab- 
 lished or endowed itself, since the two terms connote 
 the same thing under different aspects, and for different 
 purposes. All members of the State are, in this sense, 
 
other Religious Communions. 223 
 
 members of the Church. Must we, then, limit the one 
 expression, " the Church," to the clergy of the three, or 
 perhaps the two, chief orders of the ministry, and call 
 them the " Spiritualty," as the title runs in the Acts of 
 Parliament passed in the reign of Henry VIII., and 
 limit the other expression, " the State," to the laity, and 
 call them the " Temporally " ? But historically, even 
 this limitation must be still further limited. For the 
 " Spiritualty " as used in the Acts referred to clearly 
 means the clergy in the Houses of Convocation, as well 
 as the Bishops in the House of Lords, and the " Tem- 
 poralty " the laity in their Houses of Parliament. So 
 the term " Church " becomes in meaning limited not 
 only to the clergy, but to the episcopate, and to the 
 official and elected representatives of the clergy in their 
 Convocations ; and the term " State " becomes in mean- 
 ing limited not only to the laity, but to the hereditary 
 peerage, and to the elected representatives of the laity 
 in the House of Commons. 
 
 Again, if we agree to use the term " State " as equi- 
 valent to the two Houses of Parliament, we shall have 
 more difficulty in coming to an agreement with the 
 popular opinion in respect to the question of endow- 
 ment, as to the meaning of the term " Church." For, 
 as we have been often reminded, there is no such insti- 
 tution, as a body corporate, known in English law, as 
 the Church of England, though it may be used as a 
 convenient expression. The clergy, though for brevity 
 sometimes called a corporation, are rather an order in 
 the State, or an estate of the realm, composed of many 
 corporations. The incumbent of each episcopal see, or 
 
224 I'f'-^ Church of England and 
 
 deanery, or benefice, is regarded as a corporation sole, 
 and is capable of acquiring and holding and enjoying, 
 under certain limitations as to their use, and in return 
 for certain services, the revenues of his benefice or see. 
 The dean and canons (the " chapter," as it is called, — 
 capitulars) of a cathedral are regarded as a corporation 
 aggregate. We shall see presently how very much this 
 historical and legal fact has to do with the great diver- 
 sities in the endowments of the various benefices in 
 England. At present I draw attention to it, to show 
 how unlikely it is that Parliament, acting as the State, 
 endowed from what sources is unknown, in a most un- 
 equal fashion every benefice of ancient date in this 
 country ; for this is what it must come to if it be true, 
 as is asserted, that the Church has been endowed by the 
 State. It is not, I think, pretended that Parliament 
 has endowed any benefices of more modern date, if we 
 except the grant of ;^ 1,650,000 which was voted, in 18 18, 
 to assist the Church Building Society in erecting some 
 capacious and inartistic churches in popular places, 
 and the eleven Parliamentary grants of iJ"ioo,ooo each 
 between 1809 and 1820, for the augmenting clerical 
 incomes. 
 
 And once more, if the Church, in any form of its 
 outward organization, is, as we have seen, older than the 
 State — that is, than Parliament ; if it was the State that 
 copied the Church, not the Church the State ; if it was 
 the national Synods of the English Church which first 
 suggested the idea of a national parliament ; if the 
 canons passed in those synods were the origin of our 
 statute law ; if the property of the Church is incompar- 
 
other Religions Comimmions. 
 
 225 
 
 ably the most ancient form of property which exists, it 
 is not merely unlikely, but impossible that the Church 
 can have been originally endowed by the State. 
 
 When, therefore, we refer to the endowments of the 
 Church of England, we must be understood to mean the 
 property, derived from whatever source — rent-charges, 
 glebe-lands, or the interest of money invested in public 
 or other authorized securities — which belongs to the 
 incumbent, for the time being, of each separate benefice 
 in England and Wales. And when we have occasion to 
 speak of the " State " in reference to any contemplated 
 action respecting this propertj'", we must be understood 
 to mean 'the Parliament — that is, the Houses of Lords 
 and Commons, in the former of which the clergy are in 
 some sense represented by the episcopate and in the 
 latter of which the beneficed clergy are more or less 
 represented as holders of property by the member for 
 the district in which they reside. Having disposed of 
 this preliminary question with a view to avoid confusion 
 of thought in our arguments, I will now enter into the 
 further question. Whence are the ecclesiastical endow- 
 ments and property derived? Under this main question 
 may be included the origin of i, churches ; 2, glebe 
 lands ; 3, tithe ; 4, other forms of endowment. 
 
 I. Many of the churches which had been built during 
 the occupation of Britain by the Romans must have 
 been destroyed by the invading Saxons, or allowed to 
 fall into ruins. On the conversion of yEthelbert, two or 
 three of those remaining at Canterbury were granted to 
 the use of Augustin and his monks. And as the king- 
 doms of Kent and Essex became converted to Christi- 
 
226 The Church of England and 
 
 anity by the labours of the Italian mission, and other 
 kingdoms in the north-west became converted by the 
 labours of the Irish missionaries, this or that king and 
 this or that lord founded churches or encouraged their 
 foundation, within the limits of his kingdom or lordship. 
 The building of churches increased with the advent of 
 the Xormans, and there is not a diocese in England 
 which does not contain churches, the whole or part of 
 which presents the well-known and distinctive features 
 of Norman architecture. The period of the Plantagenets 
 is known in architecture as the Early English period, 
 when churches became very numerous. The Wars of 
 the Roses put a stop to ecclesiastical as to nearly all 
 domestic building ; but with the rest secured to the land 
 at the accession of Henry VII., architecture in all its 
 branches revived in England. From the Restoration to 
 the reign of George III., church building made but slow 
 progress. It was in the reign of the latter king that, 
 owing to the increasing population and the influx of wealth 
 in our large manufacturing towns, it was found necessary 
 to provide an increased number of churches, and the first 
 of the Church-building Acts was passed in 1818, as the 
 result of the founding of the Incorporated Church Building 
 Society. Since that time the Church has been left to 
 its own resources, and the liberality of its members. It 
 is stated that the number of churches, either newly built, 
 or rebuilt, or restored during the present century amounts 
 to over 9000, the most rapid increase having taken place 
 since 1S35. Between 1800 and 1835, it is computed 
 that about five hundred churches were newly built, and 
 between 1835 ^'^■'^ over three thousand. Between 
 
other Religions Communions. 227 
 
 1840 and 1884 the amount spent on the building and 
 restoration of churches is estimated at not less than 
 50,000,000. Mr. Miall, who was throughout his life the 
 foremost advocate of the Liberationist cause, did not 
 overstep the modesty of truth when he pointed to the 
 marvellous increase of church building as a testimony to 
 " the powers and the fruitfulness of religious life in the 
 Established Church." " All the beneficence," he said, 
 " put forth in achieving these splendid results was put 
 forth by private persons, not by Parliament." 
 
 2. Glebe lands were originally attached to every 
 church, so that no church could be consecrated without 
 some land being conveyed to it for the support of the 
 priest serving it. They varied in amount from three to 
 twenty-five acres. 
 
 3. Tithe was at first the voluntary dedication by 
 all lay persons of a tenth of their annual income or 
 profits to the service of God. Then it became a tenth 
 of such income as was derived from things which "yield 
 a yearly increase by the act of God," such as grain, 
 fruit, cattle, and underwood. In the earliest period of 
 the introduction of Christianity among the Saxons, the 
 Church was strictly missionary. Augustin and his forty 
 companions were monks of the Benedictine Order, 
 which had only recently been established in Italy. With 
 the exception of Augustin and a few others, these monks 
 were not priests, but laymen. They bound themselves 
 by vows of religion, and lived, as it is called, in com- 
 munity, and in accordance with a definite rule {regiild). 
 So the clergy who lived in the monasteries with these 
 laymen came to be called " Regulars," to distinguish 
 
228 
 
 The C/acrc/i of England and 
 
 them from the clerg}- who might be married, and who, 
 from living among the people in the world outside the 
 monasteries, were called " Seculars " {^Sacuhivi). The 
 " Regulars earned their living bj- manual labour. 
 The " Seculars " were supported b}- the tithe and 
 offerings of the faithful. At first the bishop was the 
 superior of both the Regulars and the Seculars, until 
 the former came to be ruled by an abbot or prior of 
 their own election. Then the bishop became the ruler 
 of the diocese, which was at first co-extensive with the 
 old divisions of the several kingdoms. There was one 
 bishop for the chief town or capital {caput), the church 
 of which was the cathedral — so called because it con- 
 tained the chief seat {cathedra), or throne, for the chief 
 pastor — and the mother church of the diocese. At the 
 altar of this church all the tithe and offerings of the 
 faithful were made, and the\- were sometimes divided 
 into four parts. One part was reserved for the bishop, 
 another for the clerg\'. a third for the poor, and a fourth 
 for the repair of the churches. In other cases the 
 bishop of the chief church received the tithe and ap- 
 portioned it as he thought fit. From the cathedral 
 or mother church, clerg}- were sent as missionaries to 
 minister to the spiritual wants of the people. But as 
 the Church grew and multiplied, more clerg}- would be 
 required, and the old method of one large parish 
 {pai-ochia) co-extensive with the diocese or the kingdom, 
 with one chief pastor and ruler, was found to be no 
 longer sufficient. So, not being obstinately adverse to 
 all necessary progress, the Saxon churchmen divided 
 the diocese, or large parochia, into subordinate parishes. 
 
other Religious Communions. 229 
 
 and resident clergy were settled in them. The distinc- 
 tion between the Regulars and the Seculars now be- 
 came more marked. " The Regulars were men for the 
 most part of noble race and gentle manners. They 
 were the exclusive possessors of art, of science, and of 
 literature. But they could dig, and ditch, and hedge, 
 and plough as if they had been born for no other pur- 
 pose. The Seculars were chiefly selected from the 
 Anglo-Saxon natives. They were uncouth and un- 
 learned. King's sons became monks and abbots, but no 
 noble became a parochial clergyman or parish priest." 
 So the monasteries, as they rose in favour, profited by 
 the abundance of the richest offerings, while the parishes 
 remained in obscurity and poverty. When the Danes 
 invaded this country their fury was chiefly directed 
 against the monasteries, where the wealth and treasure 
 of the nation had been gathered. The monasteries 
 were pillaged and destroyed, and the monks were either 
 killed or dispersed. The care of maintaining the pro- 
 fession of the Christian faith then passed exclusively 
 into the hands of the bishops and Seculars, who thus 
 gained an influence which they had not possessed before. 
 
 In the year 855, ^^ithelwulf, overlord of Wessex (son 
 of /Egbert, and father of Alfred), granted not, as is 
 commonly said, the tithe of his whole kingdom, but 
 the tenth acre of his crown lands, or a tithe of their 
 produce, free of tribute to the Church ; but as the Danes 
 were at that time pillaging on all sides, it is question- 
 able whether the grant was of much value. From that 
 date there are many injunctions as to the payment of 
 tithe as a religious duty. But Sclden is of opinion 
 
230 The CJnirch of England and 
 
 that, owing to the vast increase of the landed property 
 of the Anglo-Saxon Church, tithe had almost entirely 
 ceased to be paid at the time of the Korman conquest. 
 And Sir H. Ellis, a most careful student of the Domes- 
 day Book— a survey of landed taxable property made 
 after the Xorman conquest, — says that tithe is men- 
 tioned ver}- rarely, except in Lincolnshire, where it 
 was almost universal. Neither the charter of William I., 
 nor of Henrj- I., nor of Stephen, nor the Constitutions of 
 Clarendon in the reira of Henrv II., nor the oath of 
 Richard I. to preser\-e the rights of the Church, nor the 
 charter of John, contains any mention of tithe. The 
 patent rolls mention a great number of taxes or tenths 
 {decimal for the king's use, but none for the use of the 
 Church. And as the Xorman kings, in the matter of all 
 Church propert)' on which they could la}- their hands, were 
 no less notorious robbers than Henrj- VIII. or Elizabeth, 
 it is not likely that they, anj- more than the supporters 
 of a modern Liberation Societ}-, would neglect so favour- 
 able and read}- a source of revenue as a universal tithe 
 or rent-charge. It is more probable that, after the 
 Church had recovered from the effect of the disendow- 
 ment which had been carried out on a vast scale in the 
 times immediately following the Xorman conquest, and 
 had gained increased power, especially during the feeble 
 reigns of John and Henr}^ III., the Xorman prelates 
 were enabled to persuade, and it may be to enforce, the 
 punctual payment of tithe, which had, by that time, be- 
 come a universal custom on the Continent. But even 
 when the tithe began to be customarily paid, instead 
 of being given entirely to the support of the parish 
 
other Religious Conniiunions. 231 
 
 church, which had been built by the lay lords within 
 the limits of their manor or estate, portions of them were 
 alienated {i.e. paid away) to monasteries. Everywhere 
 abbeys and priories rose with greater splendour and mag- 
 nificence, and once more eclipsed the parish churches. 
 Ihpn the great lay lords bestowed the churches, with 
 the tithe and endowments of which they were pos- 
 sessed {i.e. all the rights of advowson), upon the monas- 
 teries. This was a mistaken policy, as the events of 
 history show ; but it is clear that they disposed of what 
 vas their own, and of the rights which they or their 
 ancestors had acquired. At all events, it was not, and 
 never had been, national property. They were, in fact, 
 doing the same thing as if some wealthy merchant 
 should in these days build a chapel and endow it, and 
 then make it over to a set of trustees to be used by 
 members of some Nonconformist community. It would 
 be just as reasonable and true to call one act a gift of 
 the property of the nation as the other. 
 
 If the monks had merely taken the place of the laj- 
 patron, and continued to enjoy no more than his original 
 rights, little harm would have been done. At first, they 
 left the parish priest in full possession of his endow- 
 ments. Afterwards they began to appoint those of their 
 own order who were priests, as non-resident rectors, 
 and these rectors left the ministrations of the church 
 and parish to be performed, for a small and inadequate 
 stipend, by deputies who were called vicars {vicariiis), 
 and were removable at pleasure. These practices were 
 a return to all the old abuses of lay patronage, when 
 pensions were reserved out of the parochial benefices 
 
232 
 
 for the lay patrons. They became at length so flagrant 
 that the bishops obtained a constitution, ordaining that 
 in all cases of appropriated churches {i.e. of churches 
 assigned to the monasteries) a perpetual curate or 
 vicar should be appointed, who should be instituted 1o 
 the cure of souls by the bishop, with a competent main- 
 tenance, and, except for just causes, be irremovable. 
 This is the origin of the ancient vicarages in the Churdi 
 of England. But whilst this reform secured a moie 
 liberal and permanent maintenance for the vicars, it 
 encouraged the lay patrons to further appropriate to 
 the monasteries the advowsons of their churches, and 
 to alienate the parochial endowments from their original 
 purpose. When Henry VIII. ascended the throne, nearly 
 one-half of the richest benefices had been transferred 
 to the monasteries, and at their dissolution these bene- 
 fices, with the pensions, tithe, and glebe lands, fell into 
 the hands of the king and his courtiers. Strictly speak- 
 ing, the property of the monasteries, with the exception 
 of the tithe, was not Church property, that is, property 
 devoted to the maintenance of diocesan and parochial 
 ministrations. The monks were, as we have said, chiefly 
 laymen. The original lay patrons or owners of the 
 advowsons of benefices had alienated this form of pro- 
 perty, by appropriating it to the monasteries, long before 
 the reign of Henry VIII. When the original lay patrons 
 were no longer living, the monasteries, with their estates, 
 became vested in the crown. If we take the penny of 
 Henry to represent the .shilling of Queen Victoria, the 
 capitalized value of the monastic estates may be esti- 
 mated at ;6"50,ooo,ooo of our money. It may be asked, 
 
other Rcligmis Communions. 233 
 
 What became of the monastic property ? Some of it 
 was used for the foundation of six additional bishoprics, 
 and some of the monasteries were converted into col- 
 legiate churches. A portion of the spoil was given to 
 the hospitals of St. Bartholomew and St. Thomas in 
 London, and a few grammar schools were founded. But 
 the condition of the parochial clergy was not improved, 
 for in a report presented by Archbishop Parker to Queen 
 Elizabeth, it is stated that there were in England 4500 
 benefices with cure of souls, which were not above ^10 
 a year in the king's book (i.e. the record of the valuation 
 made in the reign of Henry VIII.). And in the reign 
 of Queen Anne there were nearly 7000 benefices, out 
 of a total of 9000, which did not provide £100 a year 
 for the incumbent ; and many of these benefices were 
 without a parsonage house. The rest of the monastic 
 property was reserved by the king for his own use, or 
 squandered on the objects of his changeful passion, or 
 sold at inadequate prices to grasping and fawning cour- 
 tiers. The estates of several of our nobility have come 
 into their possession from this source. 
 
 Then there arose another abuse. As formerly the 
 tithe, originally designed chiefly for the maintenance 
 of the parochial clergy, had been appropriated to the 
 use of the monasteries, some of the m.embers of which 
 were duly qualified to serve the churches, now, the 
 tithe was impropriated — i.e. improperly applied — to the 
 use of laymen, who were not so qualified. And this 
 impropriation of tithe is the origin of lay rectors, who 
 again provided vicars at small stipends, and used the 
 greater part of the tithe as their own personal income. 
 
234 ^/^^ ChurcJi of England and 
 
 It also led to the distinction between the great tithe 
 and the small tithe. 
 
 In looking back at what has been said, there does 
 not appear to be any indication of the tithe, or of any 
 other ecclesiastical endowment, having been originally 
 national property. In the reign of Edward I., when the 
 English nation first makes its appearance in very much 
 the constitutional form which we see now, tithe had 
 acquired a prescriptive right, and it was settled, as 
 other property was settled, on its owners, lay and clerical, 
 by Act of Parliament. The statute of Edward VI., 
 which is held by some to enforce the payment of tithe 
 by Act of Parliament, was really intended principally 
 for the advancement of agriculture, and merely regulates 
 the method of the payment of tithe. In consequence 
 of the inconveniences attending the assessment and 
 collection of tithe, a voluntary system of agreement was 
 made, by which, under the name of modus, a fixed 
 annual payment was received, in some cases, in lieu of 
 a tithe in kind. These various payments and com- 
 mutations, in their origin as voluntary as the tithe itself, 
 were from time to time regulated by Acts of Parliament, 
 until, in 1836, the Tithe Commutation Act substituted 
 for payment in kind, a rent-charge payable in money, 
 based on the average price of corn for the past seven 
 years. The average value of each ;^'loo of tithe rent- 
 charge for the past forty-seven years has been ^^'103. 
 This Act was passed chiefly in the interest of the tithe- 
 payer, and, as Mr. Chamberlain once justly said, "the 
 tithe-owners have more reason to complain of the 
 arrangement of 1836 than the tithe-payers." " Up to 
 
other Religious Comimmions. 235 
 
 the passing of the Commutation Act," says Mr. Caird, 
 " the income of the Church increased with tlie increased 
 value yielded by the land, — the original object, that the 
 Church should progress in material resources in equal 
 proportion with the land, being thus maintained. 
 From 1836 that increment was stopped. Since that 
 time the rental of England has increased fifty per cent., 
 and all that portion of the increase which, previous to 
 that date, would have come to increase the resources 
 of the clergy, has come to enlarge the incomes of the 
 landowners." He considers that the tithe-owners (many 
 of whom, however, are laymen receiving over ;£'i,ooo,ooo 
 a year), would now have been richer by 2,000,000 a 
 year ; so that, in other words, so far from the present 
 burthen of tithe having become more oppressive, it has 
 been lightened by a third part of its whole weight, as 
 a consequence of the Commutation Act. 
 
 With respect to the tithe as a form of ecclesiastical 
 endowment, we may rightly regard it as in its origin a 
 voluntary payment ; then resting on custom ; then obtain- 
 ing a prescriptive right, as a human institution, and 
 surrounded with the protection of a divine sanction : 
 then regulated and enforced by the authority of legal 
 enactments, or Acts of Parliament, made with the 
 express consent of those who were interested in its 
 settlement. There is nothing in this history of tithe 
 which can be honestly made to look like the en- 
 dowment of the Church by an act of the State. If 
 legislation by the imperial Parliament respecting tithe 
 as a form of property be held to constitute it national 
 property, then legislation respecting anj- kind of pro- 
 
236 The Clmrch of England and 
 
 perty must have the same effect. Then the property 
 of any charitable institution, the property of any trust 
 for Nonconformist purposes, the property even of 
 Irish landlords must be also national property. Tithe 
 is, in fact, of the nature of a reserved rent, which 
 never belonged, when once granted, to either landlord 
 or tenant. Every one who acquires by inheritance or 
 purchase, or who undertakes to rent tithed land knows, 
 or ought to know, that he acquires or bargains for not 
 the whole, or ten-tenths, but onh- for nine-tenths of the 
 land. If the land is tithe-free, by redemption of pay- 
 ment, or otherwise, a larger rent is paid to the landlord ; 
 but if the land is not tithe-free, the payment of the 
 tithe by the tenant, instead of b\- the landlord, is con- 
 sidered in the rent, and if he could avoid paying it, he 
 would be reserving to himself what does not belong and 
 never could have belonged to him. 
 
 4. The sources from which other endowments than 
 those derived from tithe and the rent of glebe lands are 
 drawn, are chiefly the voluntary contributions in land 
 or money of members of the Church of England. There 
 are two corporations which have been authorized to deal 
 with the revenues of the Church, and to assist in their 
 redistribution. These are the Queen Anne's Bounty 
 Board, and the Ecclesiastical Commission. 
 
 The former of these was founded in the reign of 
 Queen Anne, for the purpose of receiving the first-fruits 
 charged on 4700 benefices, and the tenths charged 
 on 5000 benefices formerly paid to the Pope as a feudal 
 lord, and afterwards appropriated to his own use by 
 Henry VIII., who thought that in transferring the 
 
other Religious Commtmions. 
 
 237 
 
 supremacy of the Pope to the crown, all that went with 
 that supremacy ought to revert to himself. These first- 
 fruits and tenths were, so far as practicable, restored 
 by Queen Anne, for the benefit of the Church. The 
 first-fruits {annates) were a charge payable by the in- 
 cumbent, whether bishop or priest, on taking posses- 
 sion of his benefice ; and the tenths were an annual 
 charge upon the net profits of the benefice. Their 
 total annual value, which is calculated on the value 
 in the king's book, and has remained unaltered, is 
 £ 14,000 a year. This fund is appropriated to the 
 augmentation of small livings, and the erection or en- 
 largement of parsonage houses by means of loans spread 
 over a number of years, and chargeable on the annual 
 income of the benefice. The Governors of the Bounty 
 Board were empowered by a charter of incorporation to 
 invite funds from private sources to assist them in their 
 augmentation. Since 1831 the sums thus acquired by 
 voluntary gifts of lands, houses, tithe restored by lay 
 owners, and money is said to have amounted to more 
 than ^2,000,000. During the years 1 864-1 880 the 
 amount distributed from the funds granted by Queen 
 Anne was ^285,600. 
 
 The PLcclesiastical Commission was constituted in 
 1836, on the recommendation of two commissions which 
 had been previously issued to consider the state of the 
 several dioceses in England and Wales with reference 
 to the amount and more equal distribution of their 
 revenues ; and also of the cathedral and collegiate 
 churches ; and to make better provision for the cure of 
 souls, with special reference to the residence of the 
 
2 38 TJie Chui'ch of England and 
 
 clergy in their respectiv^e benefices. The commissioners 
 between 1840 and 1881 have been able, by a better 
 management of episcopal and capitular estates, and by 
 the receipt of ^^3, 7 50,000 from private sources — -raised, 
 that is, on the "voluntary system" — to augment and 
 endow four thousand seven hundred benefices, and to 
 provide parsonages. 
 
 Thus the modern endowments of the Church have 
 come partly from the improved management and distri- 
 bution of property already belonging to its several 
 corporations, and partly, like its ancient endowments, 
 from the voluntary zeal and piety of its members. 
 
 Three-eights or more of the original endowments of 
 the Church were indisputably given on the " voluntary 
 system ; " and it is only in regard to the remaining five- 
 eights — and probably not much more than four-eighths, 
 or one-half — that any shadow of a question can possibly 
 arise. All that can be claimed as State aid is (i) 
 the grant made in 171 1 by Parliament, acting on the 
 advice of Convocation, of ;^^3 50,000, raised by the duty of 
 one or two shillings on every chaldron of coals unloaded 
 in the port of London for three years, for the purpose of 
 erecting fifty new churches in the cities of London and 
 Westminster and their suburbs, of which only eleven or 
 twelve were built ; and (2) the parliamentary grants 
 made between 1809 and 1820, for the same purpose. 
 And even if these several grants can be claimed as 
 national, in having been made by Parliament, yet 
 property, once given by the nation, ceases to be national. 
 A gift becomes as much the property of the person to 
 whom it is given, as that which he has inherited, or 
 
other Religious Coimmmions. 
 
 239 
 
 acquired. To deprive him of it by force is as much an 
 act of robbery in one case as it is in the other. 
 
 I have referred only to the endowments or invested 
 property of the Church, because it is that on which an 
 attack is so confidently being made. Yet the con- 
 tributions to such societies as the Additional Curates, 
 the Church Pastoral Aid, the Tithe Redemption 
 Trust, and the various diocesan societies, which are all 
 gathered in on this " voluntary system," should not be 
 overlooked, as they all, in their several ways, help to 
 maintain the efficiency of the parochial organization of 
 the Church at home. Since its establishment in 1837, 
 the Additional Curates' Society has been enabled to 
 make grants for the maintenance of assistant clergy in 
 populous parishes, to the extent of ^ 1,598,624 ; and the 
 Church Pastoral Aid Society, for the same object, since 
 1836, to the extent of 1,173,943. Then there is the 
 noteworthy fact of the foundation, within a very few years, 
 of four additional bishoprics, representing in their re- 
 spective endowments a capital sum of ;i6'500,ooo, derived 
 in small part from the voluntary cession of a portion of 
 their incomes by the bishops of existing Sees, out of 
 which the new Sees have been taken, but chiefly from the 
 " voluntary system " of contributions by private persons. 
 Nor must we forget the large annual contributions on 
 the " voluntary system," of churchmen to the support of 
 Church Schools for the poor, in addition, in many cases, 
 to their payment of the School Board Rate ; the con- 
 tributions, on the "voluntary system," to such societies 
 as that for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, and 
 to the National Society, for the promotion of the 
 
240 
 
 The Church of England and 
 
 education of the poor in the principles of the Church of 
 England ; as well as to the societies for the support of 
 Foreign Missions, and the Colonial Episcopate. " Would 
 that the Church of P2ngland," it has been said with an air 
 of compassion, " would dispense with the puny aid of the 
 State, and she would see how the giant voluntaryism 
 would draw her car along." The aid of the State is 
 truly " puny," if indeed it can be said now to be of any 
 account at all ; but if the "aid" in question refers to 
 the settled endowments of the Church, which are pro- 
 tected, as any other form of property is protected, by the 
 State, but are not derived from it, then the Church's 
 car has the inestimable benefit of a pair of giants. 
 
 That the " voluntary system," apart from large en- 
 dowments, does not appear able to stimulate extraor- 
 dinary liberality, may be seen from the accounts recently 
 published of the collections for the Hospital Sunday 
 Fund for 1884, which amount to ^32,784, of which the 
 Church of England contributed ^^"25,021, and all theother 
 Nonconformist communions together, including those 
 which are apparently indescribable, £7,76'^, or less than 
 one-quarter of the whole amount. 
 
 So far, then, as the churches and endowments, which 
 belong to the Church of England, are concerned, whether 
 bestowed upon it before the reign of Henry VHI. or 
 subsequently, the Church, with the exception of some 
 comparative!)^ small grants which have been mentioned, 
 owes no more to the State than the Nonconformists do. 
 " It owes the right of building its own churches and 
 supporting its own ministry, — that and nothing more. 
 It owes the privilege of receiving the offerings of those 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 241 
 
 who contributed to them on the ' voluntary system,' — 
 that and nothing more. It owes its right to receive the 
 tithe or rent-charge on lands granted many generations 
 ago to its parish churches, — that and nothing more. 
 xAnd it owes to the State, in its legislative and in its 
 executive capacity, the protection of its property, just 
 as every Nonconformist or other recognized society or 
 corporation does, — that and nothing more." 
 
242 The Church of England and 
 
 LECTURE XIII. 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND — ITS DISESTABLISHMENT 
 AND DISENDOWMENT. 
 
 I HAVE entered, in the two previous lectures, into the 
 question of the " establishment " and endowments of the 
 Church of England. I have explained that the phrases 
 " the Established Church," " the Church of England as 
 by law established," and the like, did not come into 
 general use until after the passing of the Toleration 
 Act, and that these phrases expressed the result of the 
 acknowledgment by Parliament of several religious com- 
 munions, and at the same time the acknowledgment of 
 cne religious body which stands in a special relation 
 to it and to the nation. The Toleration Act secured 
 for all dissenters, except Romanists and Unitarians, 
 freedom from certain penalties which previously attached 
 to all those persons who attended religious worship 
 according to forms other than those of the Established 
 Church. But it did more. It assumed that the mem- 
 bers of those religious communions who separated them- 
 selves from the Church of England on the various 
 grounds of doctrine, or discipline, or ritual were still 
 members of the national Church. It deprived them of 
 
other Religions Comimmions. 
 
 243 
 
 none of the legal privileges of a conforming parishioner. 
 They could still, if otherwise properly qualified by resi- 
 dence and the payment of the poor-rate, attend the 
 meetings of the parish in vestry, and vote for or against 
 the election of a churchwarden, or the imposition of a 
 rate for the maintenance of the fabric of the parish 
 church, and for all other objects which could be legally 
 defrayed out of the church rate. They had still the 
 right of resorting to the parish church for the sacra- 
 ments and other offices of religion. They could still 
 be married, their children baptized, and themselves or 
 their children buried with all the rites, and by the 
 ordained ministers of the Church. 
 
 It was the possession of these privileges or oppor- 
 tunities which Nonconformists have so far resented as 
 to agitate for the abolition of church rates, for the per- 
 formance of marriage in dissenting chapels, and of burial 
 in consecrated churchyards by their own ministers. In 
 some cases they acquired the right to the possession of 
 one or more pews in the parish church, and they could 
 not seldom soften the susceptibilities of a scrupulous 
 conscience which counselled resistance to the payment 
 of a church-rate, by the sale or letting of the occupancy 
 of these pews. So it appears that, in any sense in which 
 the Church of England is established by law for the 
 benefit of its attached members, it is equally established 
 for the benefit of those who, of their own accord, dissent 
 from its doctrine or its discipline. To speak of a 
 nonconforming parishioner is, strictly speaking, to intro- 
 duce a contradiction in terms. For a parishioner, in the 
 sense in which the word is used in the Prayer-book and 
 
244 -^/^^ Church of England and 
 
 in the various ancient statutes of the realm, meant a 
 person who has been baptized, and who has been con- 
 firmed by the bishop : who receives the Holy Communion 
 in the church three times a year at the least, of which 
 Easter is to be one ; who pays his accustomed dues and 
 offerings ; who steadfastly believes all the articles of 
 the Christian faith as set forth in the Creed ; and who 
 endeavours to discharge his dut}- towards God and 
 towards his neighbour. But while these qualifications 
 of a parishioner, according to the theory of the Church, 
 have one by one been suffered to fall into abeyance, 
 the legislature has continued the use of the term in 
 more modern statutes for civil purposes, and for the 
 administration of local government. This practice has 
 led to some more confusion in the use of the term ; and 
 to this source we may, in some measure, owe the inven- 
 tion and introduction of those eminently pious and 
 pacific personages, the " three aggrieved parishioners." 
 Still, the continued use of the term onh- ser\'es to show 
 that, in whatever sense the national Church may be 
 said to have been by law established, it has been so 
 established as to include the nation, and to extend 
 whatever spiritual privileges it has to offer to the people 
 of the nation. Every one in the nation may, unless 
 he has by some act of his own become disqualified, 
 make use of the services of the Church and the minis- 
 trations of the clerg}-. A Nonconformist chapel which 
 has sittings for a thousand persons, is private propert}-. 
 A parish church, with only a congregation of three 
 persons, is in a certain sense national, and cannot refuse 
 admittance to any parishioner. A chapel may be sold 
 
other Religious Coniumnions. 245 
 
 by the trustees, and converted into any purpose they 
 may agree upon, and the civil court will not interfere 
 to restrain them, unless a dispute arises. A parish 
 church, although it is the incumbent's freehold, cannot 
 be sold, or removed, or converted to any other use than 
 that for which it was consecrated, without the consent 
 of the nation expressed through its legislative as- 
 semblies. " It is still the church of the parish, though 
 not half the parishioners may be present at the services 
 which are held in it. Just as a bridge may become 
 national, not because the whole nation passes over it, but 
 because the nation has secured that right for all who are 
 willing to use it. Nationality in this sense does not 
 mean the exact counting of so many heads at one time. 
 It is a modern notion to suppose that as the majority 
 varies the Church ceases or continues to be the Church of 
 the nation." If, then, the Church is the national Church, 
 there must be a sense in which it is established by law. 
 And it is established in this sense only, namely, that 
 the State (that is, the three estates of the realm), by 
 legislating on matters affecting the outwai'd organiza- 
 tion or constitution of the Church of England, has 
 secured the services of its ministers for every individual 
 person in the nation, and that at no cost to itself And 
 what possible disadvantage can it be, it may be asked, 
 to Nonconformists, if the .State has thus, at no cost to 
 itself, secured for all the members of the nation their 
 right to the services of the national Church, if they 
 choose to avail themselves of their right ? Is it an act 
 of injustice that the opportunity should be offered.'' 
 Would it not be a much more intolerable and oppressive 
 
246 The Church of England aiid 
 
 act, if even- one else except registered Nonconformists 
 could exercise this right ? Or again, is it an act of 
 injustice to them that others desire to avail themselves 
 of the opportunity ofifered and secured to them ? If the 
 Nonconformist does not wish to avail himself of the 
 right of taking his part in the ser\-ices of the Church, 
 or of obtaining the ministrations of the clerg)' at other 
 times, what wrong is inflicted on him if Churchmen 
 prefer to avail themselves of these services and ministra- 
 tions ? Why should he desire so ardently to restrict 
 the Church, as an establishment, to the cramped dimen- 
 sions of a sect, or to curtail its widespread influence for 
 good by seeking to " cut off the supplies " ? What pos- 
 sible good can he do to himself or to those who think 
 and act with him ? What possible harm ma}- he not 
 do to those who, as honest as he is, prefer the ministra- 
 tions of the old Church to the exhortations at Little 
 Bethel ? 
 
 By establishment, then, in the sense in which I have 
 admitted, the State controls, in some measure, the action 
 of the clerg}-, and secures for the nation the religious 
 and spiritual services of the Church, which it has done 
 nothing to found, and little, it may be added, to en- 
 courage or advance. It secures the active co-operation 
 of a large body of men devoted to the most important 
 of all duties, and for this co-operation it pays nothing. 
 Fierce denunciations of the Church, bitter reproofs of 
 supposed transgressions on the side of a too zealous 
 earnestness, trenchant exposures of imaginar}- grievances, 
 and sometimes, it must in fairness be admitted, not un- 
 deser\-ed invective, though in times now long past. 
 
other Religious Communions. 247 
 
 against the supineness of its rulers, for whose appoint- 
 ment it was not wholly responsible, and against the sloth 
 and neglect of its pastors have been heard, at one time or 
 another, in the House of Commons, but no Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer includes in his annual budget a single 
 item for the expenses of the national Church, or the 
 payment of the stipends of its clergy. The expansion 
 of commerce and manufactures increases the resources 
 and extends the wealth of the nation, while it alters 
 the proportions of the population, so that it becomes a 
 task of advancing magnitude how to provide the insti- 
 tutions of religion for the people who are constantly 
 gathering, and in some cases it may be rather called 
 herding together, in our large cities and towns and their 
 ever-extending suburbs. But the State, that is, the 
 nation through its Parliament, has not touched this 
 burden so much as with its little finger. It has left 
 the Church alone and unaided to struggle with the 
 rising flood of immorality of all kinds, and of discon- 
 tent veiled as socialism. And yet it is acknowledged 
 on all sides that if it were not for the efforts which the 
 Church, through the clergy and lay workers, is daily 
 making to stem the course of that flood, it might ere 
 this have risen to its full and towering height, bringing 
 with it impending ruin. If, then, a disestablishment of 
 the Church, which involves merely the abolition of the 
 existing form of the supremacy of the crown, and the 
 control which the State or the nation through its Par- 
 liament thereby claims to exercise over the Church be 
 all that is aimed at by the members of the Liberation 
 Societ>-, the clergy, if they merely regarded their own 
 
248 The Church of England and 
 
 interests, could scarcely be expected to raise any objec- 
 tion. But whether it would be for the benefit of the 
 nation at large — that is, chiefly of the laitj-— is a much 
 more important question, and one which would have 
 to be ultimately determined by the nation. And that 
 question would resolve itself into a form of this kind : 
 ^^'ill it be for the good of the nation to make any 
 change in its existing relations with the Church of 
 England — that is, to alter the laws and institutions which 
 bind the Church more closely than any other religious 
 communion to the nation — or to alienate Church pro- 
 perty to other uses than those for which it was originally 
 given on the ' voluntar}' system,' — say, for instance, as was 
 proposed in the case of the surplus funds of the Church 
 of Ireland to the endowment of additional asylums for 
 an increasing number of lunatics ? 
 
 We have now arrived at the point where A\ e are met 
 by a procession of intrepid orators marching under a 
 banner on which is inscribed the " blazing principles " of 
 disestablishment and disendowment. Who are these? 
 They are the paid agents and the active supporters of 
 what was at first called the " Anti-State-Church Society," 
 founded in 1844, by [Mr. Edward Miall, formerly M.P. 
 for Bradford. This society, finding that its name 
 savoured too much of ecclesiastical pugilism, changed it 
 to that of " The Societ)- for the Separation or Liberation 
 of Religion from State Patronage and Control." This 
 high-sounding title suggests two things. It suggests 
 that the Church of England is in worse than Egy ptian 
 bondage ; and it suggests that this society has been 
 mercifully raised up, like a second Moses, to deliver it 
 
other Religious Communions. 249 
 
 and set it free. This society professes to have an 
 average income of over £\6,ooo a year, but in the report 
 for 1878, six counties are stated to have each con- 
 tributed, on an average, £60 from nearly 800 subscribers, 
 or about \s. 6d. each ; and London ^1521 from 621 sub- 
 scribers, or an average of £2 (^s. each. Two-tliirds of 
 the society's annual income is said to be derived from a 
 special fund of £100,000, which was originated in 1874, 
 but the subscriptions amounted to no more than i!^5 3,000. 
 And of this latter amount a little less than one-half, 
 or ^20,000, was raised in the town and the immediate 
 neighbourhood of Bradford, in Yorkshire, — three firms 
 contributing £\^,ooo between them. Leeds, on the 
 other hand, contributed only ^^^240; Birmingham, £^4.^ ; 
 while London and Manchester sent over ;^"6ooo each. 
 This society has mapped out the whole country into 
 districts, in each of which it maintains a trained and 
 paid agent. Its operations are carried on by means of 
 lectures, public meetings, and addresses in local parlia- 
 ments, working men's clubs, schoolroom and debating 
 societies. It is diligent in the circulation of " millions of 
 pamphlets and leaflets," in which the object and plans 
 of the society are clearly and briefly set forth with all 
 the sweetness of the candid friend. In 1879 the society 
 circulated no less than 3,141,767 publications, and its 
 agents delivered 794 lectures. A genuine sale of the 
 society's publications for the four years ending May 
 1878, realized £284 14^-. id. Local newspapers are 
 judiciously utilized, and local influence is everywhere 
 courted to ensure the success of the society's operations, 
 and to secure the return of members to Parliament who 
 
250 The Church of England and 
 
 will record their vote consistently with the society's pro- 
 gramme. And the programme is plainly this, to relieve 
 the " establishment " of its " separable worldly incidents," 
 under the plea of liberating the " Church." 
 
 The society is said to be composed chiefly of a few 
 Romanists, Secularists, and some Protestant dissenters 
 of various shades, and to be supported by a large follow- 
 ing. But it has been remarked that it has not amongst 
 its members and subscribers more than a very small 
 minority of the ministers and members of the older 
 Nonconformist communions, and that it is not fair to 
 take for granted that a Nonconformist and a member of 
 this society are synonymous terms. Further, if we care- 
 fully scrutinize the subscription lists and balance-sheets, 
 we shall be justified in coming to the conclusion that, as 
 this society is supported by the wealth of a few, and not 
 by the smaller contributions of the many, it does not 
 truly represent anj- earnest desire on the part of the 
 majority of members of Parliament, or their constituents, 
 for the disestablishment and disendowment of the 
 Church. Neither does this scrutiny give any proof that 
 the majority of Nonconformists in England are in 
 sympath}- with the objects of the society, or that they 
 are even interested in its proceedings. It rather shows 
 that while this society contains only a very small 
 minority of the members, and those not in any way 
 eminent, of the various Nonconforming religious bodies, 
 it is mainly composed of those who openly avow it as 
 their aim, not only to try to get rid of the Church as an 
 establishment, but of the Christian religion. I cannot 
 but think that this society, designedly or not I am un- 
 
other Religions Communions. 2 5 1 
 
 willing to say, acts distinctly in the direction of widening 
 the breach between the Church of England and the 
 Nonconformists, by constantly fanning the flames of 
 disaffection and dissension. I have referred at some 
 length to the operations and plans of this society, 
 because (i) they set out clearly the measures which the 
 society proposes to apply to the Church ; (2) they 
 enable us to estimate some of the effects of these 
 measures ; (3) they suggest the propriety of using all 
 the means at our disposal for the constitutional develop- 
 ment of the Church, in accordance with the requirements 
 of modern life, as the best way of resisting the spoliation 
 of its revenues ; (4) they stimulate the proper feeling of 
 uniting, without any needless sense of alarm, in defence 
 of the Church against the attacks which are being 
 levelled on its historic position, but more especially on 
 its revenues and property; (5) they remind us of our 
 duty as Churchmen to make ourselves accurately ac- 
 quainted with the history of the spiritual and temporal 
 constitution of the Church of England, and of its ancient 
 and modern endowments ; (6) they act as a loud call 
 to us, not to let dissensions on other matters prevent 
 our united action against encroachments on our rights 
 and liberties, or encourage the further advance of our 
 opponents. 
 
 I. What are the measures which this society 
 proposes to apply to the Church.' (i) As to the 
 churches. The cathedrals, abbeys, and other monu- 
 mental buildings are to be regarded as national property, 
 under national control, and they are to be maintained 
 for such uses as Parliament may from time to time 
 
252 Tlie Church of England and 
 
 determine. Ancient churches — i.e. all churches existing 
 at the date (18 1 8) of the passing of the first of the 
 Church Building Acts — are to be vested in a parochial 
 board elected by the ratepaj-ers, and they may be sold 
 or used as the board may think fit. ^Modern churches 
 {i.e. those erected since that date) which have been built 
 at the sole expense of some person, still living, may, on 
 his application, be vested in him or in such persons as 
 he may appoint. IModern churches which have been 
 built by means of voluntaiy subscriptions entirely, are to 
 become the property of the existing congregations, and 
 to be held in trust for their use. IModern churches which 
 have been built partly by subscriptions, and partly from 
 Parliamentary grants, and other public sources, are to 
 be offered to the existing congregations, subject to a 
 charge upon the building in respect of the amount 
 derived from public sources. Proprietary churches are 
 to remain in the hands of the present proprietors. 
 
 i2) As to the endowments, and the parsonage 
 houses. These are to follow, for the most part, the 
 regulations respecting the churches ; and only the exist- 
 ing incumbents are to be considered as having any 
 vested interest, independently of services rendered, for 
 life, or during the tenure of their incumbency. The 
 distinction which is here introduced between the ex- 
 pediency of confiscating modern endowments which 
 have been voluntarily given since 1818, and confiscating 
 ancient endowments which have been voluntarily given 
 prior to that date, is one of pure sentiment, and rests on 
 no principle. For the nature of an endowment is the 
 same whether it be fifty or five hundred years old. The 
 
other Religious Communions, 
 
 253 
 
 distinction can only be intended to envelop the entire 
 proposal of confiscation with the halo of a generous 
 liberality. 
 
 (3) As to the surplus of Church property. As it 
 might be some years after the Act for Disestablishing 
 and Disendowing the Church was passed, before there 
 was any available surplus, it may be left to the nation 
 of that time to decide on its appropriation with reference 
 to the wants and feelings of the period. Still, various 
 suggestions are now made lest the wisdom of the coming 
 age may perchance prove unequal to the task. There is 
 education always ready to absorb every available surplus. 
 There is the maintenance of the poor, and the bait of a 
 diminished poor-rate is temptingly dangled before the 
 eyes of the unsuspecting ratepayer. There is the drainage 
 question — a perpetual channel for absorption, and one 
 which is never weary of enduring costly and fruitless 
 experiments. And there is one always favourite candi- 
 date with every financial reformer — the reduction of the 
 national debt. Happy is the Church which is able to 
 make, if only in imagination, so many friends by means 
 of the unrighteous mammon of its religious endowments ! 
 
 2. What would be some of the effects of disestablish- 
 ment and disendowment .'' By " disestablishment " must 
 be understood, as Mr. Freeman has pointed out (i) the 
 repeal of all laws which, whether for purposes of pri\-i- 
 lege or for purposes of control, make any difference 
 between the Church of England and other religious 
 communions. (2) The removal of the obligation on the 
 part of the sovereign to be in comm.union with the 
 Church of England — i.e. to take the Coronation Oath. 
 
254 The CJmrch of England and 
 
 (3) The removal of the archbishops and bishops who 
 sit and vote in the House of Peers, not in virtue of 
 their baronies, as it is sometimes said, but as lords 
 spiritual. (4) The dissolution of all existing eccle- 
 siastical courts, since any matter in dispute respecting 
 Church property or civil rights would have to be 
 decided in the civil courts, and all questions affecting 
 doctrine or ritual would come under the notice of Con- 
 vocation, or such Church courts as might be newly 
 constituted. (5) The surrender by the crown of its 
 claim to make appointments to all and any ecclesiastical 
 office. (6) The repeal of the Acts of Uniformity. 
 (7) The abolition of all patronage, and especially all lay 
 patronage. (8) The abolition of all privileges and 
 exemptions, and also of all disabilities which now 
 specially attach to the ministers and office-bearers of the 
 Church. The incumbent would no longer be cx officio 
 chairman of the parish vestry, or the churchwardens be 
 ex officio overseers of the poor. On the other hand, as 
 an archangel of the so-called " Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church " has before now been M.P., so might an arch- 
 deacon be M.P. 
 
 By " disendowment " we understand the confiscation 
 or taking away of the property of all ecclesiastical 
 corporations. And one of the most evident of the 
 effects of this confiscation of property would be the 
 disendowment of the poor man's church, and that 
 specially in the remote country parishes. Experience 
 tells us that, as in America, as in Ireland, as among the 
 Roman Catholics in England, a rich Church on the 
 " voluntary system " will provide well enough for its 
 
other Rcligwiis Comnmnions. 255 
 
 town parishes, where rich and poor are not far apart. 
 In fact, in many towns the endowments of the Church of 
 England are now very insignificant compared with what 
 is and has been raised on the voluntary system. But 
 experience tells a different tale in country parishes. 
 The writer of an article on Disestablishment and Dis- 
 cndowmcnt, or, as he prefers to call it, " Religious 
 Equality," in the Fortnightly Review, asks, " Is it not 
 the glory of the Nonconformist Churches in England, and 
 of the Roman Churches here and in Ireland, that they 
 have ministered to numbers apart from wealth ? " The 
 peasantry of Connaught, and the Irish in Liverpool, 
 would tell him, whatever glory there may be in the fact, 
 that their Churches and clergy are maintained by dues 
 and offerings wrung from the earnings of the poorest. 
 Those who know anything about the lives and homes of 
 the poor in England, would tell him that the dissenting 
 minister is seldom found in their cottages and small 
 rooms, and that the " voluntary system " compels him 
 to attend to those who pay him his stipend. The 
 countiy parishes have now a church and a resident 
 clergyman, whose office it is to minister at all times to 
 the spiritual needs of the poorest of his people. And 
 experience will avow that the real cases of negligent 
 clergymen arc happily now so few that the exceptions 
 are notable ; and that it is not only the spiritual, but the 
 bodily needs of the poor which receive the most constant 
 and exacting attention. The evils consequent on discn- 
 dowment might be partly obviated by a wise and gracious 
 policy among the richer members of the Church, but the 
 experience of some of the outlying parishes in Ireland is 
 
256 Tlie Church of England and 
 
 somewhat ominous. It is stated that writs have been 
 issued against about one thousand Irish landlords for the 
 non-payment of tithe rent-charge. If it be true, as is 
 asserted, that the agricultural labourers hate the parsons, 
 detest the Church, and desire earnestly its disendow- 
 ment, there is little more to be said. But we maj^ claim 
 that the question should be fairly put before them, and 
 that they should be enabled to understand that, in an 
 attempt to provide an imaginary remedy for an imaginary 
 grievance, they are asked to deprive themselves of advan- 
 tages which have belonged to them or their forefathers 
 for centuries. 
 
 3. What are the grounds on which the confiscation 
 of Church property is urged, both on behalf of the 
 interests of the Church and in the interests of those 
 who dissent from the Church ? 
 
 It is urged (1) that the Church would be set free 
 from all State control. But this is impossible. " As long 
 as any religious community holds no property, has no 
 trust deeds, no formulated doctrine, no form of worship, 
 no rules or regulations of any kind affecting the civil 
 rights of its members, it will not be subject to State 
 control, because in this chaotic condition there can be 
 nothing to form a ground of dispute. But the moment 
 any religious body acquires and holds property, no 
 matter on what tenure or of what amount, — the moment 
 it has trust deeds in which are inserted the conditions of 
 the tenure of its property, the doctrines to be held and 
 taught, the general mode or form of worship and the 
 obligations to be observed by its ministers and office- 
 bearers and members, — at that moment it places itself 
 
other Religious Commimions. 257 
 
 under the protection of the State, and subjects itself 
 to State control." There are numerous cases which could 
 be cited to show that Nonconformist trusts have come 
 under the consideration of the judges of the civil courts, 
 and that Acts of Parliament have been passed having 
 reference exclusively to Nonconformist communions. 
 By Acts of Parliament the " Free Churches," as they are 
 called, are legally recognized, protected, and controlled. 
 To Acts of Parliament they must have recourse in 
 making such changes in their trust deeds as affect 
 the tenure of their property, or the civil rights of their 
 ministers or their members. The only way in which 
 the " Free Churches " can escape from the inconvenient 
 pressure of the " Dead Hand," and the decisions of the 
 civil courts which represent the control of the State, is 
 by entirely ignoring the conditions of their trust deeds, — 
 " driving a coach-and- four through them." And this is 
 a way which is said to find favour in many of the 
 Nonconformist Churches. " As a matter of fact," says 
 Mr. Baldwin Brown, in an address before the Congre- 
 gational Union, " trust deeds are constantly ignored, 
 and that by our ablest and most successful men, chair- 
 men of the Congregational Union. At this moment 
 many of the most eminent of our ministers are preaching 
 under trust deeds containing statements of doctrine 
 which nothing could induce them to utter from their 
 pulpits." And as to the " Free Churches " not being 
 subject to Acts of Parliament, was not recourse had to 
 Parliament, it may be asked, in 1844, to secure the pro- 
 perty and endowments of certain meeting-houses to the 
 use of religious bodies who had widely departed from 
 
 S 
 
258 The Church of England and 
 
 the doctrines and discipline of those who had first used 
 the property? In this case an Act of Parliament was 
 made to override the trust deeds, and the parties con- 
 cerned obtained from the State a new title to their 
 property. 
 
 The Primitive Methodists and the Presbyterians in 
 Ireland have also had recourse to Parliament within 
 recent years for an Act to enable them to regulate the 
 trusts and constitution of their societies. And in the 
 preamble of the Acts, it is stated in precise terms that 
 "the purposes aforesaid cannot be effected without the 
 aid and authority of Parliament." So, then, even if the 
 scheme of the Liberation Society were ever carried into 
 practice, the object which is professed, in so kindly a 
 spirit, to be arrived at would not be attained. The 
 Church would not be entirely freed from control by 
 Parliament. " It is impossible," says Lord Selborne 
 (Lord Chancellor), " that any property should be either 
 acquired or retained by a disestablished Church, or that 
 its minister should have any churches to officiate in, 
 without a jurisdiction in the civil courts to determine 
 questions of doctrine, discipline, or ritual. Nor could 
 anything prevent Parliament from legislating at any 
 time, if it thought fit, so as to authorize the civil courts 
 to review on the whole merits, or disregard altogether 
 any sentence whatever of any voluntary Church judica- 
 ture." It is well for us to be assured on so high an 
 authority, that no religious body, whether it be estab- 
 lished or disestablished, within the limits of the juris- 
 diction of the English crown, if possessed of any kind 
 of property, or any kind of trust deeds, can escape from 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 the control, in certain cases of Parliament. If the civil 
 courts do not interfere to enforce the conditions of a 
 trust deed where they are being violated, it is because no 
 one sufficiently cares for the trust deed to move the court. 
 
 (2) Another advantage which is pressed upon Church- 
 men as a reason for disestablishment and its necessary 
 practical consequence disendowment is, that it would 
 give greater liberty both to the clergy and the laity 
 in religious matters, and that it is on this account 
 that some amongst the clergy are found to advocate 
 this course. To offer liberty to any one is to assume 
 that he is at present deprived of his liberty, and is 
 more or less in bondage. But no one is forced to 
 receive holy orders in the Church, and any one who 
 has been ordained is at liberty to retire from the 
 exercise of the gifts of the ministry. Is it, then, liberty 
 to each priest to teach what he thinks most Catholic 
 or most Protestant, or to conduct the public forms of 
 divine worship in whatever way will be agreeable to his 
 teaching This would be the liberty not of communion 
 but of a disunion, which would be fatal to the existence 
 of any religious body. The liberty of the priest would 
 be the bondage of the people. Why, it is already often 
 a subject of complaint from the same quarter that the 
 clergy have too much liberty, and that owing to their 
 present independent position under the Establishment, 
 they are too little answerable either to the bishop or to 
 their parishioners ! And if among the clergy there are 
 some who think the bonds and fetters of State-control, 
 as they describe them, have so injured the spiritual 
 character of the Church, and weakened its spiritual 
 
26o The Church of Englajid and 
 
 jurisdiction and discipline, that it were well to be taught 
 even by an enemy, and to join in throwing off the yoke 
 of bondage, is it not a fact that the spiritual life among 
 the faithful members of the Church of England will, so 
 far as it can be known by its good fruits, compare most 
 favourably with that of the members of any other reli- 
 gious communion ? It has not been always so. No, we 
 sorrowfully admit it. But that it is so in these days, 
 and has been so in days gone b}-, only the more con- 
 clusively proves that spirituality of life has not been 
 hindered by any lawful control exercised by the State, 
 but by the mischievous exercise of lawful powers on the 
 part of the crown and its ad\-isers to turn the Church 
 into an engine for the advancement of political ends. 
 Nor could the laity be in any appreciable degree more 
 free than they are under the present condition. " No 
 religious body in existence," it has been said, " would 
 allow its members anj-thing like the liberty and privi- 
 leges possessed by the members of the Church of 
 England, with so little recognition of obligation, and 
 such a minimum of exacted discharge of duty in return." 
 These two are the chief reasons, though there are several 
 others, why it is urged that the Church in its own 
 interests should be disestablished : {a) that it would 
 be entirely, or much more free from State control ; {h) 
 that it would secure greater liberty- to the clerg)- and 
 laity. But there are also reasons put forward in the 
 interests of the Nonconformists, and all others who 
 prefer to consider themselves outside the Church, and 
 these reasons take for the most part the shape of 
 objections. 
 
otiicr Religious Communions. 261 
 
 (1) There is the general assertion, as an abstract 
 theory, that any assistance rendered by the State to 
 religion is entirely wrong, and that its acceptance by the 
 Church is sinful. This is a proposition which savours of 
 absurdity. For both religion and the civil government 
 aim at the enforcement of morality in all departments of 
 life and society. As it is manifest that religion appeals 
 to higher sanctions than human laws can appeal to, it is 
 more likely to be successful in its efforts than a system 
 which is necessarily dependent for obtaining the results 
 it aims at by means of pains and penalties. Why, then, 
 should not the civil government for its own purposes 
 assist the Church as the embodiment of religion ? Or 
 why should a nation, which in the main holds the same 
 belief in all the essential articles of the Christian faith, 
 be called upon to renounce its belief whenever it has to 
 act in a civil or political capacity ? 
 
 (2) There is the theological assertion against the 
 State recognizing any form of the Christian religion, 
 founded on the remark of our Lord to Pilate, "My 
 kingdom is not of this world." It cannot in seriousness 
 be supposed that our Lord was on that occasion referring 
 to the union of " Church and State." He was setting 
 forth the spiritual origin of His kingdom, in reply to 
 those who had urged that its establishment must neces- 
 sarily be in direct opposition to the kingdom of Caesar. 
 His words referred, in fact, to the nature of His kingdom, 
 and not to the mode of its existence among the nations. 
 
 (3) There are the particular assertions in reference 
 to the Church of England. 
 
 {a) The establishment of the Church inflicts injustice 
 
262 
 
 The Chtirch of England and 
 
 on a large section of the community. This " large section 
 of the community " appears to consist of those who, 
 for various reasons, do not conform to the doctrine 
 and discipline of the Church. They think it an in- 
 justice to themselves that the majority of their fellow- 
 countrymen should be allowed to enjoy the privileges 
 of communion in the national Church. This is an 
 objection which surely breathes rather the petulant 
 spirit of intolerance than the spirit of a sound mind. To 
 those who have studied the history of the Church, and 
 who remember that it has grown up with the nation, and 
 that it has been accepted by the nation, and recognized 
 by the laws of the realm as the Church of the nation 
 for nearly a thousand years without any breach of 
 spiritual or historical continuity ; that its churches are 
 open in every parish for all the inhabitants who are 
 willing to take their part in divine worship ; that the 
 ministrations of the clergy are practically at the disposal 
 of every parishioner who demands them ; and that every 
 person possesses in this country freedom to worship God 
 according to his conscience, so long as he does not mis- 
 use this freedom to subvert social order ; it must seem 
 a most incomprehensible assertion that the existence of 
 the Church of England in its present relations with the 
 nation should be considered as an act of injustice. 
 The remedy for this assumed injustice is " Religious 
 Equality." But if by religious equality be meant that 
 public opinion is to be compelled to regard with the 
 same affection and respect the religious institution with 
 its outward marks of unity which for so many years has 
 been a part of the " body politick " — that is, of this realm 
 
other Religious Communions. 263 
 
 of England, — and a concourse of institutions designedly- 
 manifesting the " dissidence of dissent," it is plain to all 
 persons of ordinary sense that " religious equality " could 
 no more in this respect be brought about by Act of 
 Parliament than commercial, political, or social equality 
 could be brought about by the same legislative process. 
 " An Act of Parliament may take away, by an act of sheer 
 robbery, all or any of the endowments and other property 
 of the Church, one by one in each parish, but no Act of 
 Parliament can take away the history, the traditions, the 
 influence, and the moral and spiritual power of the 
 Church." 
 
 ih) The establishment of the Church of England is 
 injurious to the political interests of the nation. It 
 may be asked to what political interests .'' If under the 
 cover of " political interests " be meant the revolution of 
 the constitution, the destruction of all existing national 
 institutions, the confiscation of all property, lay as well 
 as ecclesiastical, in the interests of socialism and com- 
 munism, then the influence of the Church might be 
 reckoned on as helping, in no party sense, to conserve 
 what has been proved to be good and useful, and to 
 oppose to the apostles of violence and rapine the gospel 
 of honesty and order. The latest " political interest " 
 which has strongly affected the nation is the extension 
 of the franchise to 2,000,000 additional voters. When 
 this question came before the House of Peers, the Lords 
 Spiritual — the bishops on their bench, headed by the 
 primate, in no spirit of servile fear, at once, as the 
 representatives of the clergy, recognized the political 
 rights and interests of their fellow-countrymen, and. 
 
264 The Church of England and 
 
 with few exceptions, recorded their votes in favour of 
 the Bill, although, as the result proved, they were in a 
 minority on the question. There is such a thing in the 
 gospel code as Christian Socialism. It is to be found 
 in the precepts " Honour all men ; " " Love the brother- 
 hood." But it has corresponding commands, " Fear 
 God ; honour the King," even when the king was Nero, 
 an Anti-christ. 
 
 (c) The establishment of the Church of England is 
 injurious to the religious interests of the nation. In 
 other words, the existence of a Church which provides 
 one or more buildings in every parish, to which all the 
 parishioners may have access, if they will, for the ad- 
 ministration of the Sacraments, and other divine offices, 
 — which provides clergy in every parish to minister to the 
 parishioners publicly in the church, and privately in case 
 of sickness and need the means of grace and the conso- 
 lations of religion, is, by the mere fact of its being recog- 
 nized by the nation as the Church of the nation, injurious 
 to the religious interests of the nation. This is just as 
 true an assertion as it would be to say that the establish- 
 ment of public dispensaries, medical officers of health, 
 sanitary inspectors, schools and inspectors of schools, is 
 injurious to the sanitary and educational interests of the 
 nation. At no time, it may truly be said, during its 
 long and chequered history, has the Church, in the 
 person of her clergy and laity, been more earnest and 
 anxious to meet the religious wants and advance the 
 religious interests of the nation than at the present time. 
 The efforts which have been recently made by means of 
 the missions inaugurated in the north and east of London,' 
 
other Religious Communions. 
 
 265 
 
 and extending to the west, to recall to a sense of their 
 responsibilities before God and to each other, both the 
 rich and the poor, is of itself a present and a practical 
 answer to the unproven charge that the Church of Eng- 
 land, as established by law, if you please, is injurious 
 to the religious interests of this great city, which thus 
 affords only one example of what is being done to for- 
 ward the religious interests of the whole nation. 
 
 There are many other minor objections which have 
 been urged against the continuance of the present rela- 
 tions existing between the Church of England and the 
 nation, some of which have been already considered in 
 former lectures, and the others would occupy too much 
 space, or are not of sufficient importance to discuss. 
 The whole question is, as I have already said, really one 
 which concerns the laity of the Church far more deeply 
 than it concerns the clergy, and it is a practical question, 
 and one which cannot be dealt with on merely abstract 
 or sentimental theories. The first question which must 
 be presented eventually before the nation, when stripped 
 of all sentiment as to " national property " on the one 
 hand, or " sacrilege " on the other, would be, " Is there 
 any good and sufficient reason for depriving the next 
 incumbent of each episcopal see and of each cathedral 
 and parish church in the kingdom of the endowments 
 hitherto enjoyed, in return for religious services rendered 
 to the nation, by his predecessors " The second ques- 
 tion would be, " Would a change of so radical a nature, 
 so important in its immediate and ultimate effects, a 
 change which would touch so many interests and asso- 
 ciations, be really for the good of the nation or not ? " 
 
266 The Church of England and 
 
 The third question would be, " To what better purposes 
 could the existing endowments be applied ? " And the 
 fourth question would be, " On what grounds is it pro- 
 posed that any kind of endowments possessed by any of 
 the Nonconformist — including in this sense the Roman- 
 ists — communions should be retained ? " It remains for 
 the advocates of disendowment to make out their case. 
 They must show, in a practical and conclusive manner, 
 that the Church of England, or " the Establishment," if 
 they prefer the title, is the cause of evils to this country 
 so great as not only to outweigh any advantages which 
 it may confer, but also to outweigh the evils necessarily 
 inherent in such a vast change as they propose. They 
 are in this free country entitled to a fair hearing, and 
 those who think it would be wiser to retain the present 
 position of the Church are entitled to a fair hearing also. 
 
 The advocates of disestablishment and disendowment 
 are at liberty to produce all the strongest arguments 
 they can marshal in defence of their policy : but they 
 must not raise objections if their arguments are tho- 
 roughly examined ; if every weak point is immediately 
 the object of attack, and every fallacy in their reasoning 
 is mercilessly exposed. Nor need there be imported 
 into the discussion any animosity of feeling or vindictive- 
 ness on either side, since each professes to be interested 
 in advocating that course which is thought to be for the 
 highest good of the nation. 
 
 In bringing to a conclusion this course of lectures, I 
 will venture to quote the words of a distinguished lay- 
 member of the Church (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in his 
 article in the Contemporary Review (July, 1875), "Is the 
 
other Religious Communions. 267 
 
 Church of England worth preserving?" His words are 
 these : " Within this haven it has, especially of late years, 
 been amply proved that every good work of the divine 
 kingdom may be prosecuted with effect, and every 
 quality that enlarges and ennobles human character 
 may be abundantly reared." 
 
I N D 
 
 E X. 
 
 A 
 
 Abbot, Archbishop, 15 
 
 Act of Submission, 180, 195 
 
 Act of Supremacy, 143, 180, 195, 203 
 
 Act of Toleration, 28, 212, 242 
 
 Act of Uniformity, 27, 42, 206, 207 
 
 Advertisements, the, 22 
 
 Agnostic, 118 
 
 Altruism, 139 
 
 Anabaptists, the, 41 
 
 Anselm, Archbishop, 185 
 
 Appeals to the Pope, 181 
 
 Appropriations, 232 
 
 Apostolic succession, 178 
 
 Arianism, 58, 77 
 
 Arminians, 15 
 
 Augustin, Archbishop, 159-163 
 B 
 
 Baptism of infants, 48-50 
 Baptismal regeneration, 45-48 
 Baptists, history of, 41-44; doctrines 
 
 of, 44-50 
 Barclay, R., 71 
 
 Barlow, Bishop, consecration of, 170, 
 171 
 
 Barrow, 24, 25 
 Beacon controversy, 73 
 Bible Christians, 98 
 Bidle, John, 53 
 
 Birmingham riots, 57 
 Brethren, Christian, 4 
 Brethren (Plymouth), the, doctrines of, 
 
 132-135; the history of, 131,132 
 British Church, 160, 162 
 Browne, Robert, 23, 24, 39 
 
 C 
 
 Calvin, John, 7-9, 39 
 
 Catholic Apostolic Church, doctrines 
 of, 128-131 ; history of {see also 
 Irving, E.), 127, 128 
 
 Charta, Magna, 188 
 
 Chillingworth, 53, 56, 77 
 
 Christ, sinlessness of, 59, 123, 126 
 
 Church building, 225-227 
 
 Church and State, 33, 214-220, 222- 
 225, 246-248, 256 
 
 Clarke, Dr. S., 53, 54 
 
 Class-meeting, Wesleyan, 99-101 
 
 Clementine Homilies, 152 
 
 Cloveshoo, Council of, 181 
 
 Comte, A., 135, 136 
 
 Congregationalism {see also Inde- 
 pendents), 30-37 
 
 Congregational Union, 31 
 
 Corboil, Archbishop, 185 
 
 Catena Greek, 155 
 
 Convulsionists, 90 
 
Index. 
 
 D 
 
 Decretals, false, 154 
 Denominations, the three, 28, 52 
 Director)- for Public Worship, 18, 206 
 Disestablishment and disendowment, 
 
 effect of, 253-256 ; reasons for, 256- 
 
 267 
 
 Dissent defined, 2 
 Dort, S5'nod of, 15 
 
 E 
 
 Ecclesiastical Commission, 237 
 Edward VI., ordinal, 171, 177; second 
 
 year of, 166 
 Elizabeth, Queen, and Puritans, 9-12, 
 
 16, 21-23 ; ^r'd Romanists, 141, 142, 
 
 147 
 
 England, Church of, spiritual continuity 
 of, 145, 146, 159-17S, 197, 198; 
 historical continuity of, 179-201, 203; 
 establishment of, 202-221 ; endow- 
 ment of, 222-241 ; disestablishment 
 and disendowment of, 242-267 ; 
 organization prior to that of the State, 
 158, 164, 224; a national church, 
 209-211, 221, 244-246 
 
 Episcopate, Marian, 148, 179, 179; 
 Roman, introduced into England by 
 Pope Pius IX., 149-151, 178, 179 
 
 Evangelicalism, 85 
 
 F 
 
 Feathers Tavern Petition, 56 
 First-fruits, 191 
 Fox, George, 65-68 
 Friars, 3 
 
 Friends, Society of {sec Quakers) ; 
 histor}- of, 64-76 ; doctrines of, 76- 
 84 
 
 G 
 
 Glebe lands, 227 
 
 H 
 
 Hampton Court Conference, 14 
 Henrj' I. and the Pope, 185 
 Henr}- VIII. and the Popes, 143, 192- 
 195 
 
 Hicksites, 75 
 Hooker, R., 13 
 
 House of Lay Representatives, 219 
 Humanity, worship of, 137-140 
 Huntingdon, Countess of (see Metho- 
 dists, Cah-inistic), 95, 96 
 
 I 
 
 Impropriations, 233 
 
 Independents, histor)^ of {see also Con- 
 
 gregationaUsts), 23-30 ; organization 
 
 of, 3C^37 
 Inward light, the, 76-78, 81 
 Ireland, missionaries from, 160, 161 
 Irving. E., 39, 126-128 
 
 Jacob, 26 
 Jesuits, 147 
 
 John, King, and the Pope, 186-189 
 Johnson, 25 
 
 K 
 
 Keithites, 74 
 
 Kilhamites {sec Methodist Xew Con- 
 nexion), 96 
 Knox, John, 9 ' 
 
 L 
 
 Langton, Archbishop, 186-188 
 Lasco, John a, 9 
 Laud, Archbishop, 19 
 Legate, Papal, 186 
 Liberation Society, 35, 24S-252 
 Lingard, Dr., testimony to the conse- 
 cration of Bishop Barlow, 170 
 Lollards, the, 3, 4 
 
Index. 
 
 M 
 
 Mar-Prelate Tracts, 13, 25 
 Methodism, organization of, 99-101 ; 
 
 ritual of, 106-110 
 Methodism (Wesley an), history of, 
 
 90-94 
 
 Methodism, Wesleyan, Revised Prayer- 
 book, 9, 107-109 
 
 Methodist, origin of name, 86 
 
 Methodist, United Free Church, 99 
 
 Methodist, Wesleyan Association, 98 
 
 Methodist, Wesleyan reformers, 98 
 
 Methodists, Calvinistic {see also Hun- 
 tingdon, Countess of), 95, 96 
 
 Methodists, Episcopal, 92 
 
 Methodists, Independent, 96 
 
 Methodists, New Connexion of, 96, 97 
 
 Methodists, Primitive, 97, 98 
 
 Millenarians, 134 
 
 Millenary Petition, 14 
 
 Monasteries, property of, 231-233 
 
 Moravians, 88 
 
 N 
 
 Nag's Head Fable, 168 
 
 New Church, the, history of (^see also 
 
 Swedenborg) 113-115; doctrines of, 
 
 121-125 
 New learning, the, 204, 205 
 Nonconformists, 28, 51, 212 
 Norman Conquest, 182, 183 
 
 O 
 
 Oaths, abolition of, 80 
 Orders, holy, 82, 83 ; validity of, in the 
 Church of Eng and 167, 1 71-278 
 
 P 
 
 Pall (pallium), the, 182 
 
 Papal Supremacy, history of, 151-157 ; 
 
 in England, 142, 143, 145, 146, 173, 
 
 174, 181, 185-191, 199 
 Parishioner, legal definition of, 243, 
 
 244 
 
 Parker, Archbishop, 21, 166, 172, 176, 
 177 
 
 Penn, W., 68-70 
 Penry, John, 13, 25 
 ' Peter's pence, 182 
 Peter, St., supremacy of, 152, 157 
 Pietists, 88 
 
 Pilgrim Fathers, 26, 65 
 : Pope, jurisdiction of, 173, 174, 178 
 i Positivism (see also A. Comte), 135-140 
 Prayer-book, first English, 141-146 ; 
 of Elizabeth, 141, 206; abolition of, 
 18, 19 
 
 Presbyterians, 13-20, 29, 52, 55 
 Priestley, 56, 57 
 Prophesyings of the clergy, 21 
 Public Worship Regulation Act, 217, 
 218 
 
 j Puritans, 3, 6, 9-13, 16-20, 22, 51 
 
 ' Q 
 
 Quakers, the (see Friends, Society oO, 
 
 39, 65, 66. 
 Queen Anne's Bounty Board, 236, 237 
 Quinquarticular Controversy, 16 
 
 R 
 
 Recognitions, the, 152 
 Recusants, i, 147 
 
 Reformation, the, 180, 191, 204, 205, 
 211 
 
 RegiiDti Donum, 34 
 Regulars, the, 227 
 
 Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill, 
 140 
 
 Romanism in England, history of, 
 
 141-151 
 Root and Branch Bill, 17 
 Ranters, 97 
 
 Royal supremacy, 144, 196-198, 202 
 S 
 
 Sacraments, doctrines of, 80, 82 
 Sectaries, i, 20 
 
Index. 
 
 Seculars, the, 22S 
 Seminarists, 14S, 149 
 Separatists, I, 26 
 Solemn League and Covenant, 18 
 Sonship of Christ, 62 
 Sponsors, 49 
 
 Statute of Praemunire, 145, 190 
 Statute of Provisors, 145, 190 
 Swedenborg, history and writings of, 
 I16-121 
 
 T 
 
 Theodore, Archbishop, 163-165, iSo 
 Tithe, history of, 227-236 
 Traskites, 65 
 
 Triers, Cromwell's, 33, 206 
 Trinity Holy, doctrine of the, 57, 61 
 Trust deeds, of Xonconformist chapels, 
 
 36, 257 
 Tyndale, AV., 5 
 
 U 
 
 Unitarians, doctrines of, 5S-63 ; his- 
 tory of, 52-58 
 
 V 
 
 Vicars, origin of, 231, 232 
 Voluntary s}-stem, 33, 23S-241 
 
 W 
 
 Wandsworth, Orders of, 13 
 , Wesley, Charles, 86, 87, 96 
 Wesley, John, 86-93, 94i 9^1 102-106, 
 
 IIO-II2 
 
 Westminster Assembly, 18 
 ^^^litby, Sjmod of, 163 
 \Miitefield, G., 86, 89, 94 
 ■ WicUf, John, 3, 4, 189, 204 
 William I. and the Pope, 1S2-184 
 William II. and the Pope, 1 84 
 Woman, worship of, 138, 140 
 
 Z 
 
 I 
 
 ] Zinzendorf, Count, 88 
 
 THE END 
 
 PKISTED EV WILLI.VM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONCCN ANL/bECCLES.